Sidvy MCP Server

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, but some overlap exists: 'complete_todo', 'toggle_todo', and 'uncomplete_todo' all manage todo completion status, which could cause confusion. Similarly, 'get_pending_todos' and 'list_todos' with filtering might overlap. However, descriptions clarify differences, and other tools like 'create_group' vs. 'create_group_path' are well-differentiated.
Naming Consistency5/5
Tool names follow a highly consistent verb_noun pattern throughout, using snake_case uniformly. Verbs are clear and predictable (e.g., create_, get_, list_, update_, delete_, search_), with no mixing of conventions or chaotic naming. This makes the set easy to navigate and understand.
Tool Count2/5
With 42 tools, the count is excessive for a note and todo management server, making it feel heavy and potentially overwhelming. A more focused set of 10-20 tools could cover the same domain without redundancy, as many tools (e.g., multiple todo status tools) could be consolidated into fewer, more versatile ones.
Completeness5/5
The tool surface provides comprehensive CRUD and lifecycle coverage for notes, todos, groups, and workspaces, with no obvious gaps. It includes creation, retrieval, updating, deletion, searching, and specialized operations like statistics and hierarchical management, ensuring agents can handle all core workflows without dead ends.
Average 3.1/5 across 42 of 42 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 1 commit in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

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

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

How is the quality score calculated?

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

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

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

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

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'append' implies a mutation operation, it doesn't specify whether this requires specific permissions, if the operation is idempotent, what happens with invalid IDs, or what the response looks like. The description is minimal and lacks crucial behavioral 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 with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loads the core functionality 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?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens on success/failure, return values, error conditions, or how it differs from similar tools. The minimal description leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior and context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (id, content, workspaceId) with their types and descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, meeting the baseline score when schema coverage is high.
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 ('Append content') and target resource ('to an existing note'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_note' or 'create_note', which would require explicit comparison to achieve a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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_note' or 'create_note', nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., the note must exist). It only states what the tool does without contextual usage information.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'Create' implies a write operation, but doesn't disclose permissions needed, side effects (e.g., impact on existing groups), error conditions, or response format. 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 front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks behavioral details (e.g., permissions, errors), output expectations, and usage context, making it inadequate 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.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all parameters (name, workspaceId, parentId). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, but the baseline is 3 when schema coverage is high.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Create') and resource ('new group'), with the purpose 'for organizing notes' providing helpful context. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_workspace' or 'create_note' by specifying the group type, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'create_group_path' which might be similar.
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 'create_group_path' or 'update_group', nor any prerequisites or constraints. The description only states what it does, not when it's appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool creates a note, implying a write operation, but doesn't cover permissions, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens on success (e.g., returns a note ID). This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
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.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., a note object or ID), error handling, or behavioral nuances like default workspace usage, leaving significant gaps for the agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond implying markdown format for content, which is already in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Create a new note') and resource ('note with markdown content'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'update_note' or 'delete_note'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'create_todos_for_note' or specify that it creates a standalone note versus a note with todos.
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 'update_note' or 'create_todos_for_note'. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., workspace existence) or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states this is a creation operation, implying mutation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether it's idempotent, error conditions (e.g., invalid noteId), or what happens on success (e.g., returns a todo ID). 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 a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, 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 this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., the created todo object or ID), error handling, or dependencies like requiring an existing note. For a 5-parameter creation tool, more context 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 100%, so the schema already documents all 5 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond implying a 'note' association, which is already covered by the noteId parameter's schema description. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Create a new todo') and the target resource ('associated with a note'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_todos_for_note' or 'create_note', which would require mentioning that this creates a single todo attached to a specific line in an existing note.
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 note), exclusions, or compare it to siblings like 'create_todos_for_note' (bulk creation) or 'create_note' (creating notes instead of todos).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool creates todos but doesn't mention permissions required, whether this is a write operation, how errors are handled, or what the output looks like. For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a straightforward creation 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 creation tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens after creation, error conditions, or how the tool integrates with the broader todo/note system. The context signals indicate complexity that isn't addressed in the description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific context beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain relationships between parameters or usage patterns). This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but doesn't provide extra value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('create multiple todos') and the target resource ('for a note at once'), which is specific and actionable. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling 'create_todo' tool, which appears to create single todos, missing an opportunity for clear 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 'create_todo' for single todos or other note/todo-related tools. There's no mention of prerequisites, constraints, or typical scenarios for batch creation, leaving usage context entirely implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get all completed todos' implies a read operation, but it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, how results are ordered, if pagination is handled (beyond the 'limit' parameter), or what the return format looks like. For a 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 with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core purpose ('Get all completed todos'), making it immediately clear. Every word earns its place, and there's no 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 (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return values, ordering, authentication needs, or how it interacts with siblings. While the schema covers parameters, the lack of behavioral context and output details makes this inadequate for a tool that retrieves data.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters ('workspaceId' and 'limit') well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond implying retrieval of 'all' completed todos, which might conflict with the optional 'workspaceId' and 'limit' constraints. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get all completed todos' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('completed todos'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_pending_todos' and 'list_todos' by specifying the completion status, though it doesn't explicitly mention how it differs from 'search_todos' which might also filter by completion.
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 when to prefer it over 'list_todos' (which might return all todos), 'get_pending_todos', or 'search_todos' (which could filter by completion). There are no prerequisites or exclusions 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states a read operation ('Get') but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like permissions needed, rate limits, error handling, or the format of the returned path. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
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 is front-loaded and appropriately sized, with every part contributing to understanding the 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?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the 'full path' output looks like (e.g., list of group names, IDs, or structure), nor does it cover behavioral aspects like errors or constraints, making it inadequate for a tool with 2 required parameters and no structured support.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('groupId' and 'workspaceId'). The description implies these are needed to locate the group but adds no meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining relationships between parameters or usage examples.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'full path from root to a specific group', making the purpose understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'get_group_tree' or 'get_child_groups', which also retrieve group-related information, so it misses full sibling distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get_group_tree' or 'list_groups'. It lacks context about prerequisites, exclusions, or specific scenarios where this tool is preferred, offering only a basic functional statement.
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 what data is retrieved ('incomplete/pending todos') without mentioning pagination behavior, sorting order, performance characteristics, authentication requirements, or error conditions. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that communicates the core purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool and front-loads the essential information 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 moderate complexity (filtered retrieval with optional parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what format the todos are returned in, what fields they contain, whether results are paginated, or how the workspaceId parameter affects results when omitted.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. According to the scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.
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 ('incomplete/pending todos'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_completed_todos' and 'list_todos' by specifying the completion status filter, though it doesn't explicitly name these alternatives.
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_completed_todos', 'list_todos', or 'search_todos'. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual factors that would help an agent choose appropriately among similar 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool returns but doesn't mention whether it's paginated, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what format the output takes. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that communicates the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool and front-loads the essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'get' means operationally (e.g., returns a list, single object, or structured data), doesn't mention authentication or workspace context requirements, and leaves the agent guessing about the return format despite the simple parameter schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'workspaceId', which is documented as optional. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without adding extra value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('root-level groups'), with the clarifying constraint 'groups with no parent' that distinguishes it from general group listing tools. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_groups' or 'get_child_groups' beyond the parent constraint.
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 'list_groups', 'get_child_groups', or 'get_group_tree'. It mentions the 'no parent' constraint but doesn't explain scenarios where this specific filtering is needed or when other tools might be more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, pagination, or return format. For a read operation 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 that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to understand at a glance.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a read operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the return values are, how errors are handled, or any behavioral constraints, leaving gaps that could hinder an AI agent's ability to use the tool effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for both parameters in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the relationship between noteId and workspaceId or usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'todos associated with a specific note', making the purpose evident. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'get_pending_todos' or 'get_completed_todos' by specifying the note association, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'list_todos' which might also retrieve todos.
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 when to prefer this over 'list_todos', 'get_pending_todos', or 'search_todos', nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions, leaving usage context implied but not explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it 'gets details' but doesn't specify what details are returned, whether it's read-only (implied but not explicit), or any error conditions (e.g., invalid ID). This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
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 any wasted words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to understand at a glance.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and a simple but undocumented return type, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'details' are returned or handle potential complexities, making it inadequate for a tool that likely returns structured workspace data.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with 'workspaceId' clearly documented as 'Workspace ID to retrieve'. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without compensating further.
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 ('details of a specific workspace'), making the purpose evident. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_workspace_by_name' or 'get_workspace_stats', which also retrieve workspace information but with different parameters or scope, so it falls short of 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 such as 'get_workspace_by_name' (which might retrieve by name instead of ID) or 'list_workspaces' (for listing multiple workspaces). It lacks explicit context or exclusions, leaving usage unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Get detailed statistics' but doesn't specify what statistics are included, whether it's read-only (implied by 'Get'), requires permissions, has rate limits, or returns structured data. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely provides complex output.
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 and appropriately sized for a simple tool, with every part contributing to clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, and the potential complexity of 'detailed statistics', the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what statistics are returned, their format, or any behavioral aspects like error handling, making it inadequate for an agent to fully understand the tool's operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the parameter 'workspaceId' documented as optional and defaulting if unspecified. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as examples or context for the default workspace, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without compensating value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('detailed statistics for a workspace'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_workspace' or 'get_todo_stats', which provide different types of workspace or statistical information, so it lacks specific sibling distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'get_workspace' (for general info), 'get_todo_stats' (for todo-specific stats), and 'list_workspaces' (for listing), there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving usage ambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'hierarchical structure' which hints at the output format, but doesn't describe pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens when filters return no results. For a list operation with 5 parameters, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that communicates the core functionality without wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a list 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 tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the hierarchical output structure, pagination behavior, error conditions, or how multiple filters interact. The agent would need to guess about important behavioral aspects despite the good parameter documentation in the schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds marginal value by mentioning 'filtering' which aligns with the workspaceId, parentId, and search parameters, but doesn't provide additional semantic context beyond what the schema already specifies. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('groups'), and specifies 'with hierarchical structure and filtering' which adds useful context about the output format and capabilities. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_root_groups', 'get_child_groups', or 'get_group_tree' which also retrieve groups with different scopes.
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_root_groups' (for root groups only), 'get_child_groups' (for children of a specific parent), or 'get_group_tree' (for hierarchical tree structure). There's no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions filtering but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination (implied by 'limit' parameter), default sorting, whether results include metadata, or error conditions. For a list tool with 7 parameters, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It avoids redundancy but could be slightly more structured by explicitly naming key filter types. There's no wasted text, though it may be too brief given the tool's complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain return format, pagination behavior, error handling, or how filters combine. The agent lacks sufficient context to use this tool effectively beyond basic parameter guessing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all 7 parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning filtering options 'by completion status, note, etc.', which loosely maps to 'completed' and 'noteId' parameters. However, it doesn't explain parameter interactions or provide additional semantic context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('todos') with a brief mention of filtering capabilities. It distinguishes from some siblings like 'get_pending_todos' or 'get_completed_todos' by being more general, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'search_todos' which also filters. The purpose is clear but sibling differentiation is incomplete.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_todos', 'get_pending_todos', or 'get_completed_todos'. It mentions filtering options but doesn't specify scenarios or exclusions. Without usage context, the agent must infer from parameter 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 'move' operation, implying mutation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as permissions required, whether the move is reversible, effects on child groups or associated data, error conditions, or response format. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Move a group') and clarifies the destination. There is no wasted wording, and it directly communicates the essential information 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 is a mutation operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral aspects like side effects, error handling, or return values, which are critical for safe and effective use. The high schema coverage helps but doesn't compensate for missing context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value by implying 'newParentId' can be omitted to move to root, which is already covered in the schema description. No additional semantics beyond the schema are provided, meeting the baseline for high coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Move') and resource ('a group'), specifying the target destination ('to a new parent or to root level'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_group' or 'delete_group' by focusing on relocation, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar tools like 'update_group' which might also modify group properties.
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 prerequisites (e.g., needing group IDs), exclusions (e.g., cannot move to a child group), or comparisons to siblings like 'update_group' for other modifications. Usage is implied but not explicitly defined.
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 implies a mutation ('rename') but doesn't disclose permission requirements, whether the change is reversible, error conditions, or what happens on success. For a mutation 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 that directly states the tool's function without any fluff. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, with every word earning its place in conveying the core 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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error handling, or behavioral nuances like idempotency. Given the complexity of renaming a workspace, more context is needed to guide the agent effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents both parameters (workspaceId and newName). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as format examples or constraints like the newName length limits. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('rename') and target resource ('existing workspace'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_workspace' and 'update_workspace' by focusing specifically on renaming, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with these alternatives.
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 'update_workspace' or 'create_workspace'. The description lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing workspace ID) or any exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions searching by text content but doesn't specify whether the search is case-sensitive, supports partial matches, returns paginated results, or includes metadata like todo status. This leaves significant gaps for a search 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 extremely concise with a single, direct sentence that states the core functionality 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?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the search returns (e.g., todo objects, IDs, or counts), how results are ordered, or error conditions. For a search tool with no structured support, this leaves too much unspecified.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('query' and 'workspaceId'). The description adds minimal value by implying text-based searching but doesn't provide additional context like search syntax or examples. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate but not enhanced parameter understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose as searching todos by text content, which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_todos' or 'get_pending_todos', which might also retrieve todos but with different filtering approaches.
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 'list_todos' or 'get_pending_todos'. It doesn't mention prerequisites, such as whether a workspace must exist, or clarify the search scope (e.g., across all workspaces vs. specific ones).
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 mutation ('Mark'), implying it changes state, but doesn't specify permissions required, whether the operation is reversible, error conditions (e.g., invalid todoId), or what the response looks like. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste, front-loading the core purpose. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool, 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, lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain behavioral aspects like side effects, error handling, or return values, which are critical for an agent to use it correctly. The high schema coverage helps with parameters but doesn't compensate for other gaps.
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 semantics beyond what the input schema provides, which has 100% coverage and clearly documents 'todoId' as the 'Todo ID to mark as incomplete'. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't need to compensate but also doesn't add value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Mark') and target resource ('a todo as incomplete'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from the sibling 'toggle_todo' tool, which might serve a similar function, nor does it specify whether this is the inverse of 'complete_todo'.
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 'toggle_todo' or 'complete_todo'. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., the todo must exist and be completed) or contextual constraints, leaving usage entirely implicit.
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 implies a mutation ('Update'), but doesn't specify permissions required, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or error handling. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool, making it less transparent 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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Update a group's name or move it in the hierarchy'). There is no wasted text, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like side effects, return values, or error conditions, leaving gaps that could hinder an agent's ability to use the tool correctly and safely.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters (groupId, name, parentId). The description adds minimal value by mentioning 'name' and 'move it in the hierarchy' (hinting at parentId), but doesn't provide additional context like format constraints or examples beyond what the schema specifies.
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 ('group'), specifying what can be updated ('name or move it in the hierarchy'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_group' or 'delete_group' by focusing on modifications, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'move_group' or 'rename_workspace' for groups.
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 'move_group' or 'create_group'. It lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing an existing group ID, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name and parameters 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. While 'update' implies a mutation, the description lacks details on permissions, error handling (e.g., invalid ID), side effects (e.g., whether updates are reversible), or response format. This is a significant gap 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 with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action ('update an existing note') and specifies the scope ('content or metadata'), making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like error conditions, permissions, or what the tool returns, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use it reliably beyond basic parameter mapping.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for all parameters (id, name, content, groupId). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'content or metadata', which loosely maps to parameters but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'update' and the resource 'existing note's content or metadata', making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_group' or 'update_todo', which have similar naming patterns but target 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., needing an existing note ID), exclusions (e.g., what happens if the note doesn't exist), or comparisons to related tools like 'append_to_note' or 'create_note', 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 indicates a mutation operation ('Update') but does not specify permissions required, whether changes are reversible, error handling (e.g., invalid todoId), or response format. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that modifies data.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the purpose and enumerates updatable attributes without unnecessary words. Every element 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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., permissions, side effects), error cases, and output expectations, which are critical for safe and effective use by an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all parameters (todoId, text, completed, lineNumber). The description lists the updatable fields, adding minimal semantic context beyond the schema. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage without compensating for gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Update') and resource ('a todo'), specifying the editable attributes (text, completion status, line number). It distinguishes from siblings like 'toggle_todo' or 'complete_todo' by indicating broader field updates, but does not explicitly differentiate from 'update_note' or 'update_workspace' in terms of resource type.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'toggle_todo', 'complete_todo', or 'uncomplete_todo' is provided. The description implies usage for modifying multiple todo attributes but lacks context on prerequisites, error conditions, or comparisons to sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Update' implies mutation, it doesn't specify required permissions, whether changes are reversible, error conditions, or what happens to other workspace attributes. The 'currently only name changes supported' adds some context about limitations, but overall behavioral information is minimal.
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 (one sentence) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word earns its place - 'Update a workspace' establishes the action, and '(currently only name changes supported)' provides important limitation context 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?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error conditions, permission requirements, or how it differs from similar tools like 'rename_workspace'. The scope limitation is helpful but doesn't compensate for the missing behavioral context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents both parameters (workspaceId and name). The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the parameter documentation work.
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 ('Update') and resource ('workspace'), and specifies the scope of updates ('currently only name changes supported'). It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'rename_workspace' or 'update_group', but the scope limitation provides some implicit 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 'rename_workspace' (which appears to be a sibling tool) or 'update_group'. It mentions the limitation to name changes but doesn't explain when this tool is preferred over other workspace modification 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. While 'Mark a todo as completed' implies a mutation (state change), it lacks details on permissions required, whether the operation is idempotent (e.g., what happens if the todo is already completed), side effects (e.g., updates to completion timestamps), or error conditions. For a mutation 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 waste—'Mark a todo as completed' directly conveys the core functionality without extraneous details. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple tool, making it easy for an agent to parse and understand quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'completed' entails (e.g., status field update, timestamp), potential side effects, error handling, or return values. For a tool that modifies data, more context is needed to ensure safe and correct usage by an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'todoId' clearly documented as 'Todo ID to complete'. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond this, but since schema coverage is high and there's only one parameter, the baseline score is elevated. The description implicitly reinforces that a todoId is needed to perform the completion action.
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 todo') with the specific state change ('as completed'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'toggle_todo' and 'uncomplete_todo' by specifying completion rather than toggling or reversal. However, it doesn't explicitly mention what 'completed' means in this context (e.g., status change, timestamp update).
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 'toggle_todo' or 'uncomplete_todo', nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., the todo must exist and be pending). It simply states what the tool does without contextual usage instructions, leaving the agent to infer appropriate scenarios 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 a 'Get' operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't mention permissions, rate limits, pagination, or what happens if the parentId is invalid. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (hierarchical data retrieval), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on behavior, output format, or error handling, which would be needed for full completeness in this context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters (parentId and workspaceId) documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying the parentId is required (which is already in the schema's required array). This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'all child groups of a specific parent group', making the purpose explicit. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_root_groups' (which gets root-level groups) and 'list_groups' (which lists all groups without parent-child context), though this distinction is implied rather than explicitly stated.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_group_tree' (which might return hierarchical data) or 'list_groups' (which lists all groups). It mentions a 'specific parent group' but doesn't clarify prerequisites or exclusions, leaving usage context vague.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves data ('Get'), implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify if it requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the return format looks like. This is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
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 purpose, making it easy to parse quickly, which is ideal for 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?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimal. It states what the tool does but lacks details on behavior, output, or usage context, making it incomplete for effective agent operation without additional inference.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, and it doesn't introduce any confusion, earning a baseline high score for this dimension.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and the resource ('the user's default workspace'), which is specific enough to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_workspace' or 'get_workspace_by_name', which might retrieve workspaces in different ways, so it doesn't reach the highest score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 such as 'get_workspace' or 'list_workspaces'. It lacks any context about prerequisites, timing, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Get a specific note by ID', which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what happens if the note doesn't exist. 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 that front-loads the core purpose ('Get a specific note by ID') with zero waste. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (simple retrieval), 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., error cases, permissions) and doesn't explain return values, which would be helpful since there's no output schema. It meets basic needs but has clear gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents both parameters (id and workspaceId). The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying retrieval by ID, which is already covered in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('a specific note by ID'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_recent_notes' or 'search_notes' which also retrieve notes, so it misses full sibling distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_recent_notes' or 'search_notes'. It lacks any context about prerequisites, such as needing a note ID, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Get recently updated notes' implies a read-only operation but doesn't specify sorting order (e.g., most recent first), whether it includes deleted notes, pagination behavior, or performance characteristics. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
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. Every word earns its place, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (2 optional parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks context about return format, error handling, or how 'recently updated' is defined. For a read operation with good schema coverage, it's passable but leaves the agent to guess about behavioral details.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters ('workspaceId' and 'limit') well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying recency filtering, which isn't parameterized. This meets the baseline of 3 since the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't compensate or enhance parameter understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get recently updated notes' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('notes'), with the qualifier 'recently updated' providing specific scope. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'list_notes' or 'search_notes', which likely have different filtering mechanisms. The purpose is clear but lacks 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. With sibling tools like 'list_notes' and 'search_notes' available, there's no indication of whether this tool is for chronological filtering, performance optimization, or other specific use cases. 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it 'gets' statistics, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify if it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns real-time or cached data, or handles errors. For a stats 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 front-loads the core purpose ('Get statistics about todos') and enumerates the key metrics. There is no wasted verbiage, and it's appropriately sized for a simple stats tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (one optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers what stats are returned but lacks details on behavioral traits, usage context, or output format. For a stats tool, this leaves the agent with incomplete information, though the simplicity mitigates some gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with workspaceId documented as optional and specifying the workspace to get stats from. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond implying stats are about todos, which is already clear from the tool name. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'statistics about todos', specifying the metrics (total, completed, pending, completion rate). It distinguishes from siblings like get_completed_todos or get_pending_todos by focusing on aggregated stats rather than listing individual todos. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with get_workspace_stats, which might cover similar metrics for workspaces.
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 when to prefer this over get_completed_todos or get_pending_todos for specific needs, nor does it clarify if it's for summary views or reporting. Without any usage context, the agent must infer 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 'finds' a workspace but doesn't disclose behavioral aspects: whether it returns a single match or multiple, what happens if no workspace matches the name, if the search is case-sensitive, or if it requires specific permissions. For a lookup 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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. Every part of 'Find a workspace by its name' contributes directly to understanding the tool's function, making it optimally concise and well-structured for quick comprehension.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter with full schema coverage) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but omits critical context like return behavior, error handling, and differentiation from siblings. For a basic lookup tool, this is passable but leaves the agent to guess about operational details.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'name' clearly documented as 'Workspace name to search for'. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't clarify format expectations, examples, or constraints. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but doesn't enhance parameter understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('find') and resource ('workspace by its name'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from generic 'get_workspace' by specifying the lookup mechanism, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other workspace-related tools like 'list_workspaces' or 'search_notes' that might also involve workspace identification.
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_workspace' (likely by ID), 'list_workspaces', and 'search_notes', the description doesn't indicate whether this is for exact name matching, partial matching, or when name-based lookup is preferred over other methods. 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'optional filtering and search capabilities' but doesn't clarify key behaviors like pagination (implied by 'limit' parameter), default sorting, error handling, or whether it's read-only (though implied by 'list'). For a tool with no annotations, 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 a single, efficient sentence: 'List notes with optional filtering and search capabilities.' It's front-loaded with the core purpose and wastes no words, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (6 optional parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It states the purpose but lacks behavioral details and usage context. Without annotations or output schema, more guidance on behavior and results would improve completeness, but it's not entirely inadequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all 6 parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema—it only generically mentions 'optional filtering and search' without detailing specific parameters. This meets the baseline of 3 since the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'List notes with optional filtering and search capabilities.' It specifies the verb ('List') and resource ('notes'), and mentions optional features. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_notes' or 'get_recent_notes,' 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. With sibling tools like 'search_notes' and 'get_recent_notes' available, there's no indication of when this general listing tool is preferred over more specific ones, leaving the agent without context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'full-text search' but doesn't explain how results are returned (e.g., relevance ranking, pagination), performance characteristics, or any limitations (e.g., rate limits, authentication needs). For a search 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: 'Search notes by content or title with full-text search.' It's front-loaded with the core purpose and wastes no words, making it easy to parse quickly. Every part of the sentence earns its place by specifying key details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (a search function with 3 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but misses behavioral details and output expectations. For a search tool, more context on result format or limitations would improve completeness, but it's not entirely inadequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, meaning all parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining how the query parameter works with full-text search or the default behavior if workspaceId is omitted. With high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't detract either.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Search notes by content or title with full-text search.' It specifies the verb (search), resource (notes), and scope (content or title via full-text search). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_notes' or 'search_todos,' which would be needed for a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'list_notes' (which might list all notes without search) or 'search_todos' (for searching todos instead), nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is implied but not explicitly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds value by specifying 'soft delete' (implying reversible deletion rather than permanent removal), which isn't obvious from the tool name alone. However, it lacks details on permissions, side effects, or what 'soft delete' entails operationally.
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 includes a clarifying detail ('soft delete') that earns its place by adding behavioral context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (a mutation with no annotations or output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic action and hints at behavior ('soft delete'), but lacks details on outcomes, error conditions, or integration with sibling tools, leaving gaps for an agent to infer.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'todoId' parameter clearly documented. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without compensating value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Delete') and resource ('a todo'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_note' or 'delete_workspace' beyond specifying the resource type, 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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing todo), exclusions, or comparisons to related tools like 'complete_todo' or 'toggle_todo' for managing todo states.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'authenticated user' (implying auth needs) and 'content counts' (hinting at output behavior), but lacks details on rate limits, pagination, error handling, or what 'content counts' entail. For a list operation 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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('List all workspaces') and adds key details ('authenticated user', 'content counts') without waste. Every word earns its place, making it easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and a simple input schema, the description covers the basic purpose and hints at authentication and output content. However, it lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., pagination, errors) and doesn't fully compensate for the missing structured data, making it adequate but with gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents the 'includeStats' parameter. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema, but it does imply the parameter's effect by mentioning 'content counts'. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('workspaces'), specifying 'all workspaces for the authenticated user with content counts'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_workspace' (single workspace) and 'get_workspace_stats' (statistics only), though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives. The purpose is specific and actionable.
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 by mentioning 'authenticated user', suggesting it requires authentication, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_default_workspace' or 'get_workspace_by_name'. No exclusions or clear context for choosing this over other workspace-related tools are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but provides minimal behavioral detail. It mentions the tool affects 'subsequent operations', hinting at stateful context switching, but doesn't disclose persistence scope (session vs. request), error conditions, or side effects. More context on how this interacts with other tools would be helpful.
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?
Extremely concise with one clear sentence and a helpful parenthetical. Every word earns its place by defining the action, target, and effect without redundancy or fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a stateful context-switching tool with no annotations or output schema, the description is minimal but functional. It covers the core purpose and effect, but lacks details on behavioral implications, error handling, or integration with sibling tools, leaving gaps for an agent to infer usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents the single 'workspaceId' parameter. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying the ID is used for context switching, aligning with the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('switch context') and target resource ('to a different workspace'), with the parenthetical clarifying it affects 'subsequent operations'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_workspace' (read) or 'create_workspace' (write), but doesn't explicitly contrast with all workspace-related tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when needing to change workspace context for future actions, but doesn't specify when to use this versus alternatives like 'get_default_workspace' or direct workspace parameters in other tools. No explicit exclusions or prerequisites 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool toggles completion status, implying a mutation, but doesn't cover aspects like required permissions, whether the change is reversible, error handling, or response format. 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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Toggle a todo's completion status') and clarifies the bidirectional nature ('complete <-> incomplete'). There is no wasted text, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (a mutation with one parameter) and no annotations or output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on behavioral traits, error cases, or return values, which are important for a mutation tool. It meets the minimum viable threshold but has clear gaps in completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'todoId' documented as 'Todo ID to toggle'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.
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 ('toggle') and resource ('a todo's completion status'), specifying the action between complete and incomplete states. It distinguishes from siblings like 'complete_todo' and 'uncomplete_todo' by indicating a bidirectional switch rather than one-way completion. However, it doesn't explicitly name these siblings for full differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when needing to change a todo's status in either direction, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'complete_todo' or 'uncomplete_todo'. No guidance on prerequisites or exclusions is provided, leaving usage context inferred rather than clearly defined.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds value by specifying that deletion 'moves to trash', which clarifies it's not a permanent erase—a key behavioral trait beyond the basic 'delete' action. However, it lacks details on permissions, reversibility, or response format, leaving gaps for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise—just four words—and front-loaded with the core action. Every word earns its place: 'Delete' specifies the verb, 'a note' the resource, and '(moves to trash)' adds critical behavioral context without redundancy. There's no wasted text or unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (a destructive operation with no annotations or output schema), the description is minimally complete. It covers the basic action and a key behavioral trait (moving to trash), but lacks details on error handling, permissions, or what happens post-deletion. For a mutation tool, this leaves significant gaps in agent understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'id' parameter clearly documented. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond the schema, but with only one required parameter and high schema coverage, this is adequate. A baseline of 3 is appropriate, but the simplicity of a single ID parameter elevates it slightly for clarity.
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 note'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_note' or 'update_note' by specifying deletion. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'delete_todo' or 'delete_workspace' in terms of resource type, which keeps it from a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing the note ID from 'get_note' or 'list_notes'), error conditions, or comparisons to similar tools like 'delete_todo'. This leaves the agent with minimal context for appropriate invocation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the key behavior of creating missing parent groups, which is valuable, but lacks information about permissions required, whether this operation is idempotent, error handling for existing groups, or what the response contains. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core functionality. Every word earns its place by conveying the tool's purpose and key behavior without any redundant information or fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate basic context about what the tool does but lacks completeness. It doesn't cover behavioral details like error conditions, response format, or side effects, which are important for an agent to use it correctly in complex scenarios.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents both parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain path format constraints beyond the example or workspaceId defaults). With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Create a nested group structure') and resource ('from a path'), distinguishing it from the simpler 'create_group' sibling tool by specifying it creates missing parent groups. It uses precise terminology that conveys the tool's unique functionality.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when you need to create a hierarchical group structure with automatic parent creation, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus 'create_group' or other alternatives. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate 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. It discloses the cascade delete behavior, which is critical, but doesn't mention other behavioral traits like permissions required, whether deletion is irreversible, error conditions (e.g., if group doesn't exist), or response format. For a destructive 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 front-loads the core action ('Delete a group') and adds essential detail ('and all its child groups (cascade delete)') without any wasted words. Every part earns its place by clarifying scope.
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, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It mentions cascade delete but omits critical details like confirmation requirements, error handling, or return values. For a mutation tool with such complexity, more context is needed to be fully helpful.
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 add specific meaning to the 'groupId' parameter beyond what the schema provides (schema description coverage is 100%, with 'Group ID to delete'). However, with only 1 parameter, the baseline is high, and the description implicitly reinforces that groupId identifies the group to delete, earning a score above the baseline of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Delete') and target resource ('a group'), and explicitly distinguishes it from siblings by specifying 'all its child groups (cascade delete)', which differentiates it from other deletion tools like delete_note or delete_todo that likely don't cascade.
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 deleting groups with child groups, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like delete_workspace or update_group for removal, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions (e.g., cannot delete if group has active dependencies). It provides some context but lacks explicit guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the constraint 'max 2 workspaces per user', which is a useful behavioral trait (a limit that could cause errors if exceeded). However, it doesn't mention other important aspects like what happens on success (e.g., returns workspace ID), error conditions beyond the limit, or permissions required, leaving gaps for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Create a new workspace') and adds only essential constraint information. There is no wasted text, repetition, or unnecessary elaboration, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick comprehension.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (a mutation with no annotations and no output schema), the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose and a key constraint but lacks details on return values, error handling, or permissions. For a creation tool, more context would be helpful, but it meets a minimum viable level given the single parameter and clear constraint.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'name' fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as naming conventions or examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't enhance parameter understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Create') and resource ('new workspace'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this from other workspace-related tools like 'get_workspace', 'update_workspace', or 'delete_workspace' by specifying creation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'create_group' or 'create_note', which are similar creation operations 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 Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context about when to use this tool by stating the constraint 'max 2 workspaces per user', which implicitly suggests checking 'can_create_workspace' or 'list_workspaces' first. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the constraint offers practical guidance for usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the destructive nature ('Delete a workspace and all its content') and a behavioral constraint ('cannot delete default workspace'), which is valuable. However, it doesn't mention permission requirements, whether deletion is permanent/reversible, rate limits, or what happens to nested content. For a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and includes a crucial limitation. Every word earns its place - there's no redundancy, fluff, or unnecessary elaboration. It's appropriately sized for a destructive operation with clear constraints.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides basic but incomplete context. It covers the core action and one important constraint, but doesn't address permissions, reversibility, error conditions, or what happens to associated data. Given the tool's high-stakes nature, more behavioral disclosure would be beneficial despite the concise structure.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain workspaceId format or confirmDelete implications). With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3 even without additional param details in the description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Delete'), the target resource ('a workspace and all its content'), and includes an important limitation ('cannot delete default workspace'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'delete_note' or 'delete_group' which target different resources, and from 'rename_workspace' or 'update_workspace' which modify rather than destroy.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context about when NOT to use this tool ('cannot delete default workspace'), which helps guide usage. However, it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives like 'update_workspace' for modifying instead of deleting, or specify prerequisites such as needing workspace ID from 'get_workspace' or 'list_workspaces' first.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool retrieves data ('Get'), implying a read-only operation, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or the format/structure of the returned tree. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (hierarchical data retrieval), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It specifies what the tool does but lacks details on output format, error handling, or prerequisites. With no structured fields to compensate, the description should provide more context to be fully complete for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, fully documenting the single 'workspaceId' parameter. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, but with only one parameter and high schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate. The score is elevated to 4 because the description implicitly reinforces the parameter's role by specifying 'in a workspace', aligning with the schema's purpose.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('hierarchical tree structure of all groups in a workspace'), specifying the exact scope and format of the output. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_groups' (flat list) and 'get_root_groups'/'get_child_groups' (partial hierarchy) by emphasizing the complete tree structure.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when a hierarchical view of all groups is needed, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_groups' or 'get_root_groups'. It provides clear context (workspace-based) but lacks explicit exclusions or named alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key behavioral trait of checking permissions against a limit, but lacks details on return format (e.g., boolean or structured response), error conditions, or system-specific constraints. It adds value but is incomplete for full 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 front-loads the core purpose and constraint. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (simple check with no parameters) and lack of annotations/output schema, the description covers the purpose and constraint adequately. However, it omits details like return type or error handling, leaving gaps for an agent to fully understand behavioral outcomes.
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?
With 0 parameters and 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 4. The description adds context about the user and workspace limit, which implicitly explains the lack of parameters (it checks system state rather than taking inputs), providing meaningful semantics beyond the empty schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Check if') and resource ('user can create another workspace'), with explicit scope ('max 2 allowed'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_workspace' by indicating a permission check rather than an actual creation operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It explicitly defines when to use this tool: to verify permission before attempting to create a workspace, with a clear constraint ('max 2 allowed'). This provides direct guidance on usage context and prerequisites, distinguishing it from the 'create_workspace' sibling.
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:

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

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

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

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/martinhjartmyr/sidvy-mcp'

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