Amazing Marvin MCP
Server Quality Checklist
Latest release: v1.0.0
- Disambiguation3/5
Most tools have distinct purposes, but there is notable overlap between some getter tools that could cause confusion. For example, get_completed_tasks and get_completed_tasks_for_date both retrieve completed tasks with only date filtering differences, and get_productivity_summary and get_productivity_summary_for_time_range are similar with time range variations. However, descriptions clarify these nuances, preventing major misselections.
Naming Consistency5/5Tool names follow a highly consistent verb_noun pattern throughout, such as create_task, get_projects, and start_time_tracking. There are no deviations in style (e.g., all use snake_case) or verb usage, making the set predictable and easy to navigate for an agent.
Tool Count2/5With 29 tools, the count is excessive for a task management domain, leading to potential bloat and confusion. While the domain is broad, many tools could be consolidated (e.g., multiple productivity summary tools) or omitted without losing functionality, making it feel heavy and overwhelming for typical use cases.
Completeness4/5The tool surface covers the task management domain comprehensively, including CRUD operations for tasks and projects, time tracking, productivity insights, and account management. Minor gaps exist, such as no explicit update or delete tools for tasks or projects, but agents can work around this using other methods like marking tasks done or batch operations.
Average 3/5 across 29 of 29 tools scored. Lowest: 2.4/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.
If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.
MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add
glama.jsonto the root of your repository:{ "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json", "maintainers": [ "your-github-username" ] }Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.
How to sync the server with GitHub?
Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.
To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.
How is the quality score calculated?
The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).
Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.
Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).
Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.
Tool Scores
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation but doesn't specify if it requires authentication, returns paginated results, or handles errors. The phrase 'Get time tracking data' suggests retrieval, but lacks details on data format, rate limits, or side effects, leaving significant gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is 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. However, it could be more structured by including key details like data scope or usage context, but it avoids redundancy and is appropriately sized for its limited content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (retrieving data for tasks), no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover return values, error handling, or behavioral traits, making it inadequate for the agent to reliably invoke the tool without additional context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description mentions 'specific tasks' but doesn't elaborate on the 'task_ids' parameter beyond what the schema indicates (an array of strings). With 0% schema description coverage, it fails to compensate by explaining what task IDs are valid, their format, or how many can be included, adding minimal value over the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool's purpose as retrieving time tracking data for tasks, which is clear but vague. It specifies the resource (time tracking data) and scope (tasks) but lacks detail on what data is included (e.g., duration, timestamps) and doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'time_tracking_summary' or 'get_currently_tracked_item'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, such as needing existing tasks with time tracking data, or compare it to siblings like 'get_tasks' or 'time_tracking_summary', leaving the agent to infer usage from context alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the action without behavioral details. It doesn't disclose permissions needed, whether points are irrevocable, rate limits, or response format. 'Claim' suggests a write operation, but no further transparency is offered.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, directly stating the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a 3-parameter write tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on parameter meanings, behavioral traits, and expected outcomes, making it inadequate 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.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description adds no parameter information beyond implying 'points' are claimed for a 'task', leaving 'date' and 'item_id' unexplained. It fails to compensate for the coverage gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('claim') and resource ('reward points') with the purpose 'for completing a task'. It's specific about what the tool does, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_kudos_info' which might retrieve similar information.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides minimal guidance with 'for completing a task', implying usage after task completion. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use rules, alternatives (e.g., vs. batch operations), or prerequisites, leaving the agent with vague context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'create' implies a write operation, but doesn't mention permissions, whether the creation is atomic or reversible, error handling, or any side effects like rate limits. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to grasp quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with 3 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain return values, error conditions, or provide enough detail to use the tool effectively, leaving too many unknowns.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter details. The description mentions 'project with multiple tasks', hinting at parameters like project_title and task_titles, but doesn't explain their semantics, formats, or constraints. It fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('create') and resource ('project with multiple tasks'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from the sibling 'create_project' tool, which appears to create projects without tasks, so it's not fully specific about the distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_project' or 'batch_create_tasks'. It lacks context about prerequisites, such as whether projects or tasks must be pre-existing, or any exclusions for usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a creation operation, implying mutation, but doesn't address permissions, side effects, error handling, or response format. For a mutation tool 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with 5 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain parameters, behavioral traits, or return values, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use the tool effectively beyond its basic purpose.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters. It provides no information about the five parameters (title, category_id, due_date, note, project_id), their meanings, formats, or relationships. This fails to add value beyond the bare schema, resulting in poor parameter understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Create') and resource ('new task in Amazing Marvin'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'batch_create_tasks' or 'create_project_with_tasks', which would require more specific differentiation to earn a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'batch_create_tasks' for multiple tasks or 'create_project_with_tasks' for project-related creation. There's no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent with minimal usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the action without disclosing behavioral traits like whether it's read-only, requires authentication, returns paginated results, or has rate limits. 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.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it could be more informative without sacrificing brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., list of categories, format) or any behavioral context, making it inadequate for an agent to use effectively without additional assumptions.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter information is needed. The description doesn't add param details, but this is acceptable as there are no parameters to document, aligning with the baseline for zero parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the action ('Get') and resource ('categories from Amazing Marvin'), which provides a basic purpose. However, it doesn't specify what type of categories (e.g., task categories, project categories) or distinguish this from sibling tools like 'get_labels' or 'get_projects', leaving it somewhat vague.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention context, prerequisites, or exclusions, such as whether it retrieves all categories or filtered ones, or how it differs from similar tools like 'get_labels'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Get' implies a read operation, but doesn't clarify aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, data freshness, or error conditions. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap, as it lacks details on how the tool behaves beyond the basic action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description 'Get kudos and achievement information' is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. It earns its place by clearly stating the action and resource, though it could be slightly more specific without losing conciseness. There's no waste, making it appropriately sized.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a tool that retrieves information (likely user-specific data), the description is incomplete. With no annotations, no output schema, and siblings that might overlap, it fails to provide enough context for effective use. It doesn't explain what 'kudos and achievement information' entails or how it differs from other get_* tools, leaving gaps in understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the absence of inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter details, and it doesn't introduce any confusion. A baseline of 4 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate for missing info (since none is needed) and aligns with the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get kudos and achievement information' states the action ('Get') and resource ('kudos and achievement information'), providing a basic purpose. However, it's vague about what specific information is retrieved (e.g., types of kudos, achievement metrics) and doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'get_account_info' or 'get_productivity_summary', which might overlap in scope. This meets the minimum viable threshold but lacks specificity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'get_account_info' (which might include kudos) and 'get_productivity_summary' (which could relate to achievements), there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions. This leaves the agent without direction, scoring low due to the absence of 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Mark as completed' implies a mutation operation, it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, what happens to the task status, if the action is reversible, or any side effects like notifications or updates to related data. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core functionality.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with 2 parameters (one required), 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how errors are handled, or provide enough context about parameters and behavior for safe invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning neither parameter has descriptions in the schema. The tool description provides no information about what 'item_id' represents (e.g., task identifier format) or what 'timezone_offset' does (e.g., affects completion timestamp). The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Mark as completed') and the resource ('a task in Amazing Marvin'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from its sibling 'batch_mark_done', which appears to serve a similar purpose but for multiple tasks.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'batch_mark_done' for multiple tasks or other task management tools in the sibling list. There's no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions for usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Get' implies a read operation, the description doesn't specify what 'quick' means operationally (e.g., cached data, limited scope), what 'actionable insights' entail, whether there are rate limits, authentication requirements, or what the output format looks like. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it could potentially be more specific about what 'quick' and 'actionable insights' mean to improve clarity without sacrificing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's apparent simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema), the description is somewhat complete but inadequate. It doesn't explain what constitutes the 'overview' or 'insights', how this differs from other planning tools in the sibling set, or what the agent should expect as output. For a tool in a crowded namespace with many similar alternatives, more differentiation and behavioral context would be needed for proper agent usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description doesn't need to explain parameters since none exist, and it appropriately doesn't mention any. This meets expectations for a parameterless tool.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool's purpose as 'Get a quick daily planning overview with actionable insights', which provides a general sense of functionality (retrieving planning information). However, it lacks specificity about what resources or data are involved, and it doesn't clearly distinguish this from sibling tools like 'get_daily_focus', 'get_productivity_summary', or 'get_due_items' that might provide similar planning-related information.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools that could provide planning or productivity data (e.g., 'get_daily_focus', 'get_productivity_summary', 'get_due_items'), there's no indication of what makes 'quick_daily_planning' distinct or when it would be preferred over those other options.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it creates tasks but doesn't cover permissions needed, whether it's idempotent, error handling for invalid inputs, or what the output looks like (e.g., success/failure status, created task IDs). This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Create multiple tasks at once') and adds key details ('with optional project/category assignment'). There is no wasted verbiage, making it appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given a mutation tool with 3 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., side effects, error handling), parameter specifics, and output expectations, leaving the agent with inadequate information for reliable use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'optional project/category assignment', which hints at the purpose of 'project_id' and 'category_id', and 'task_list' is implied by 'multiple tasks'. However, it doesn't explain parameter formats (e.g., string arrays for tasks), defaults, or constraints, leaving ambiguity.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Create multiple tasks at once') and resource ('tasks'), making the purpose evident. It distinguishes from 'create_task' by specifying batch capability and mentions optional project/category assignment, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'create_project_with_tasks' or other siblings beyond the batch aspect.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_task' (for single tasks) or 'create_project_with_tasks' (which might combine project and task creation). It mentions optional project/category assignment but doesn't specify prerequisites, constraints, or typical use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Create' implies a write/mutation operation but doesn't cover permissions, side effects, error handling, or response format. 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste, clearly front-loading the core purpose. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool, making every word count without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (mutation with 2 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects, parameter meanings, or usage context, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it provides no information about parameters. It doesn't explain what 'project_type' or 'title' mean, their formats, or constraints. With 2 parameters and no schema descriptions, the baseline is 3 as the description fails to add meaningful semantic context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Create') and resource ('new project in Amazing Marvin'), providing specific verb+resource information. It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'create_project_with_tasks' or 'create_task', which would require explicit differentiation for a score of 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_project_with_tasks' or 'create_task'. The description lacks context about prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools, offering minimal usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool is 'experimental', which hints at potential instability or changes, but fails to describe key behaviors such as whether this is a read-only operation, what the output format looks like, if there are pagination or rate limits, or any authentication requirements. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to interact with it safely.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise—a single sentence with no wasted words—and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every part ('Get child tasks', 'of a specific parent task or project', '(experimental)') adds value, making it efficient and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (a read operation with 1 parameter), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'child tasks' entail (e.g., nested subtasks, associated items), the return structure, or error conditions. For an 'experimental' tool, more context on limitations or expected behavior would be necessary for reliable agent use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by specifying that 'parent_id' refers to 'a specific parent task or project', clarifying the parameter's role beyond the schema's generic 'Parent Id' title. However, it doesn't detail the expected format (e.g., numeric ID, string) or constraints, leaving some ambiguity.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool's purpose ('Get child tasks of a specific parent task or project') with a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('child tasks'), but it lacks specificity about what 'child tasks' means in this context and doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like 'get_tasks' or 'get_completed_tasks'. The '(experimental)' tag adds some context but doesn't clarify the core functionality.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides minimal guidance by implying usage when you have a 'parent task or project', but it doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_tasks' (which might retrieve all tasks) or 'get_completed_tasks' (which filters by status). No explicit when-not-to-use or prerequisite information is included.
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 implies a read operation ('Get') but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or whether it returns real-time or cached data. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'comprehensive overview' includes beyond tasks and progress, nor details on return format, pagination, or error cases. For a tool with such sparse structured data, more descriptive context is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'project' which aligns with the 'project_id' parameter, adding context that this is for retrieving overviews of projects. However, it doesn't explain parameter format, constraints, or examples, leaving the single parameter only partially documented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and resource 'comprehensive overview of a project', specifying it includes 'tasks and progress'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_projects' (list) or 'get_tasks' (task-specific). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'get_productivity_summary' which might overlap conceptually.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_projects' (list projects) or 'get_tasks' (get tasks without project context). It doesn't mention prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative use cases with siblings such as 'get_productivity_summary'.
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 action but doesn't explain what 'starting time tracking' actually does: Does it create a record? Does it affect task status? Is there a limit to concurrent tracking? What permissions are needed? These critical behavioral aspects are missing.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and gets straight to the point without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, what side effects occur, or how it interacts with other time-tracking tools. Given the sibling tools and complexity of time-tracking systems, more context is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description needs to compensate but doesn't. It mentions 'task_id' implicitly ('for a specific task') but provides no details about format, validation, or where to obtain valid task IDs. The single parameter remains undocumented beyond its existence.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Start time tracking') and the target ('for a specific task'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling 'stop_time_tracking' or explain what 'time tracking' entails in this system.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'stop_time_tracking' or 'get_currently_tracked_item'. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., whether a task must exist or be in a particular state) or what happens if time tracking is already active for another task.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'stop' implies a mutation operation, it doesn't specify what happens when invoked (e.g., does it save accumulated time, trigger notifications, or update task status?). It also doesn't mention error conditions, permissions needed, or what the response looks like.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that states the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool with one parameter and gets straight to the point.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens after stopping time tracking, what data is returned, or potential side effects. Given the sibling tools include time tracking operations, more context about the workflow would be helpful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description mentions 'for a specific task' which aligns with the single 'task_id' parameter, but with 0% schema description coverage, it doesn't add meaningful details about parameter format, constraints, or where to obtain valid task IDs. The baseline is 3 since the schema fully documents the parameter structure despite lacking descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('stop time tracking') and the target resource ('for a specific task'), which provides a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from the sibling tool 'start_time_tracking' beyond the obvious action difference, missing an opportunity to clarify the relationship between these complementary tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., that time tracking must be active for the task), when not to use it, or how it relates to sibling tools like 'start_time_tracking' or 'get_currently_tracked_item'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the action without disclosing behavioral traits. It doesn't mention permissions needed, whether changes are reversible, error handling for invalid IDs, or response format, leaving significant gaps for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words, clearly front-loading the core action. Every word earns its place by specifying the verb, resource, scope, and outcome.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and minimal parameter documentation, the description is incomplete. It lacks crucial details like success/error responses, side effects, and operational constraints, making it inadequate for safe agent use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaningful context by implying 'task_ids' should contain multiple task identifiers to mark as done, which clarifies the array parameter's purpose. With 0% schema description coverage and only 1 parameter, this adequately compensates, though it doesn't detail ID format or constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('mark') and resource ('tasks') with the specific action 'as done' and scope 'multiple...at once'. It distinguishes from the sibling 'mark_task_done' by specifying batch capability, but doesn't explicitly name the sibling 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 Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'mark_task_done' for single tasks or other task management tools. The description implies batch usage but offers no explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states this is a 'Get' operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what specific account information is returned. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff. It's front-loaded and wastes no words, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what account information is retrieved (e.g., user details, settings, stats), the format of the return value, or any prerequisites. For a tool with no structured data to compensate, this leaves too much unspecified.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add any parameter details, which is appropriate here, and it doesn't contradict the schema. A baseline of 4 is applied since no parameters exist.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'account information from Amazing Marvin', making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'get_kudos_info' or 'get_productivity_summary', but the scope is clear enough for a basic retrieval operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools like 'get_kudos_info' or 'get_productivity_summary' that might overlap in retrieving account-related data, there's no indication of what makes this tool distinct or when it should be preferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states what the tool does ('Get currently tracked item'), without mentioning permissions, rate limits, response format, or error conditions. This is inadequate for a tool that likely interacts with a time-tracking system, where behavioral traits like data freshness or availability are important.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff or redundancy. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of time-tracking systems and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'currently tracked item' entails (e.g., task, project, duration), how the data is returned, or potential edge cases (e.g., no active tracking). This leaves significant gaps for an agent to use the tool effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, 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 appropriately doesn't mention any. This meets the baseline for a parameterless tool.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'currently tracked item from Amazing Marvin', making the purpose specific and understandable. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'start_time_tracking' or 'stop_time_tracking' by focusing on retrieval rather than control, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other getters like 'get_tasks' or 'get_time_tracks'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context (e.g., after starting time tracking), or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone among many 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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it's a read operation ('Get'), but doesn't mention permissions, rate limits, pagination, or what the return format looks like. This is inadequate for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a data retrieval tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'due items' are, how results are formatted, or any behavioral traits like sorting or filtering, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there's no need for parameter details in the description. The description doesn't add parameter semantics, but that's acceptable here, warranting a baseline score of 4 for this dimension.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'all due items from Amazing Marvin', making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_tasks' or 'get_completed_tasks', which reduces clarity about what makes 'due items' distinct.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_tasks' or 'get_completed_tasks'. The description lacks context about what qualifies as 'due items' or any prerequisites, 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Get all goals' implies a read operation, it doesn't specify whether this returns all goals for the current user, workspace, or account; whether there are pagination limits; what authentication is required; or what format the results will be in. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise - a single, clear sentence that states exactly what the tool does without any wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and doesn't include unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no annotations, no output schema, and operates in a context with many similar 'get_' tools, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'goals' are in this system, how they differ from tasks or projects, what information is returned, or any limitations. For a read operation in a complex task management system, more context is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (though empty). The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since there are none. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for zero-parameter tools where the description focuses on the tool's purpose rather than parameter documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('all goals from Amazing Marvin'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from similar sibling tools like 'get_tasks', 'get_projects', or 'get_categories' - all of which follow the same 'get all X' pattern without differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple 'get_' sibling tools available (get_tasks, get_projects, get_categories, etc.), there's no indication of when goals specifically are needed versus other entity types, nor any mention of prerequisites or context for using this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but doesn't describe how it behaves—for example, whether it returns real-time data, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what format the summary is in. This is a significant gap for a tool that likely aggregates data from multiple sources.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the key information ('Get productivity summary') and adds necessary detail ('with completed tasks and goals progress'). There's no wasted text, and it's structured to convey the core functionality immediately.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of summarizing productivity data and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the summary includes beyond high-level categories, how data is aggregated, or what the return format looks like. For a tool with no structured output documentation, this leaves significant gaps for an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does 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's no need for parameter documentation in the description. The baseline for this scenario is 4, as the description appropriately doesn't waste space on non-existent parameters and focuses on the tool's purpose.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('productivity summary'), and specifies what it includes ('completed tasks and goals progress'). However, it doesn't distinguish itself from its sibling tool 'get_productivity_summary_for_time_range', which suggests this tool might be for a default time period while the sibling is for a custom range.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention the sibling tool 'get_productivity_summary_for_time_range' or explain why one would choose this tool over other productivity-related tools like 'get_completed_tasks' or 'get_goals'. There's no context about prerequisites or typical use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation, what authentication is needed, rate limits, pagination behavior, or what format/scope of tasks are returned. 'Get' implies retrieval but lacks operational details.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is 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 no-parameter tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'tasks' encompasses (e.g., all tasks, active tasks, includes metadata), return format, or how it differs from sibling filtered-task tools, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate given the empty schema, earning a baseline score above minimum viable.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get tasks from Amazing Marvin' clearly states the action (get) and resource (tasks) with the source system specified. It distinguishes from siblings like get_completed_tasks or get_due_items by not specifying any filtering criteria, implying it retrieves all tasks. However, 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 Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_completed_tasks, get_due_items, or get_child_tasks. The description implies retrieval of all tasks but doesn't specify contexts where unfiltered retrieval is preferred over filtered alternatives.
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 any behavioral traits such as authentication needs, rate limits, or what the output format might be. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to interact with it effectively.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that likely returns complex data (e.g., 'overview and insights'). It doesn't explain what the output contains or any behavioral context, which is insufficient for an agent to use it correctly without additional information.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is acceptable given the schema's completeness, aligning with the baseline for this scenario.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('time tracking overview and productivity insights'), making it easy to understand what it does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_productivity_summary' or 'get_productivity_summary_for_time_range', which appear to serve similar functions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'get_productivity_summary' and 'get_productivity_summary_for_time_range' that seem related, there is no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions to help an agent choose appropriately.
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 'efficient date filtering and categorization,' hinting at performance and organizational traits, but fails to describe key behaviors such as authentication needs, rate limits, pagination, or what 'efficient' entails operationally, leaving significant gaps for a retrieval tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get completed tasks') and adds qualifying details without waste. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's scope and features, making it appropriately sized and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (a retrieval operation with implied filtering), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the purpose and hints at features but omits critical details like return format, error handling, or explicit differentiation from siblings, leaving room for improvement in completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description adds value by implying functionality like date filtering and categorization, which goes beyond the empty schema, though it doesn't detail how these are implemented (e.g., via query parameters or internal logic).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('completed tasks'), specifying the scope of retrieval. It distinguishes from generic 'get_tasks' by focusing on completed items, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'get_completed_tasks_for_date' beyond mentioning date filtering.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description mentions 'efficient date filtering and categorization,' which implies usage for filtered retrieval, but it doesn't specify when to choose this over 'get_completed_tasks_for_date' or other task-related tools, leaving the agent to infer context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves data ('Get'), implying it's a read operation, but doesn't specify whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns real-time or cached data, or what happens on errors. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get today's focus items') and adds clarifying detail ('- due items and scheduled tasks'). There is no wasted verbiage or redundancy, 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.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but not complete. It explains what the tool does but lacks details on return format, error handling, or behavioral constraints. For a read-only tool with no structured output, more context on the response would be beneficial.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (though empty). The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and it appropriately doesn't mention any. This meets the baseline for tools with no parameters, but a 5 would require explicit confirmation of no parameters needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get today's focus items - due items and scheduled tasks'. It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('today's focus items'), with additional clarification on what constitutes focus items. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from similar siblings like 'get_due_items' or 'get_tasks', which reduces 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 Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, timing considerations, or compare it to siblings like 'get_due_items' or 'get_completed_tasks_for_date'. The user must infer usage from the name and description 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 all labels' implies a read operation, but the description doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior, or what format the labels are returned in. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that states exactly what the tool does with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool with no parameters.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read operation with no parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, without annotations or output schema, it should ideally mention what 'labels' represent in the Amazing Marvin context and what format they're returned in to be fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 4. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since there are none, and the schema already fully documents the empty input object.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('all labels from Amazing Marvin'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_categories' or 'get_projects', but the resource specificity provides adequate distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple sibling 'get_' tools available (like get_categories, get_projects, get_tasks), there's no indication of when labels are the appropriate resource to retrieve versus other entity types.
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 projects' implies a read operation, but the description doesn't specify whether this returns all projects, filtered projects, paginated results, or any authentication requirements. For a read tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered about scope, format, and constraints.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that communicates the essential purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool and front-loads the core functionality. Every word earns its place in this minimal but complete statement.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but doesn't provide enough context about what 'projects' means in this system, what format they return in, or how this differs from related tools. The lack of annotations means the description should do more to explain behavioral expectations for this retrieval operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 4. The description doesn't need to explain parameters since there are none, and the schema fully documents this. The description appropriately focuses on the tool's purpose rather than parameter details that don't exist.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and resource 'projects', specifying the source as 'Amazing Marvin'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_project_overview' by focusing on retrieving projects themselves rather than overview data. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'create_project' or other project-related tools beyond the basic verb distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'get_project_overview', 'get_tasks', and 'create_project', there's no indication of when this list-retrieval operation is appropriate versus more specific queries or creation operations. The description lacks any context about use cases or prerequisites.
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 tests connection and credentials but doesn't describe what 'test' entails (e.g., authentication check, network ping, error handling), response format, or potential side effects. This is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste: 'Test the API connection and credentials' directly conveys the purpose without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded for a simple tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It states what the tool does but lacks details on behavior, response, or usage context, which could help an agent understand how to interpret results or when to invoke it.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details beyond the schema, but with no parameters, a baseline score of 4 is appropriate as it doesn't need to compensate for any gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Test the API connection and credentials' specifies the verb ('Test') and the resource ('API connection and credentials'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on connection testing rather than data operations like creating tasks or getting information, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with specific alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., after setup or when errors occur), exclusions, or comparisons to other tools like 'get_account_info' for credential verification. Usage is implied only by the purpose 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 full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It mentions 'efficient API filtering' but doesn't disclose critical traits like whether this is read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or what happens with invalid dates. This is inadequate for a tool with potential data access implications.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately concise with two sentences: one stating the tool's purpose and efficiency note, another detailing the parameter. It's front-loaded with the core function. The 'Args:' section could be slightly more integrated, but overall there's minimal waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (filtered data retrieval), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'completed tasks' entail, the return format, error handling, or authentication needs. This leaves gaps for an agent to use the tool effectively in varied contexts.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds significant value beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explicitly defines the 'date' parameter's purpose, format ('YYYY-MM-DD'), and provides an example ('2025-06-13'), fully compensating for the schema's lack of documentation. This is essential for correct tool invocation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get completed tasks') and resource ('for a specific date'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'get_completed_tasks' (which lacks date filtering) and 'get_tasks' (which may include incomplete tasks). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all similar tools like 'get_due_items' or 'get_daily_focus', preventing a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context through 'efficient API filtering' and the date parameter, suggesting this is optimized for date-specific queries. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'get_completed_tasks' (no date filter) or 'get_productivity_summary_for_time_range' (broader time range), leaving some ambiguity.
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 describes what the tool does (retrieves a summary) and parameter interactions, but doesn't address critical behavioral aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, what format the summary returns, if there are rate limits, authentication requirements, or potential side effects. 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.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with clear sections (purpose, args with explanations, examples) and uses bullet points for readability. While efficient, the 'Examples' section could be slightly more concise by combining similar cases, but overall it's front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids unnecessary verbiage.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is partially complete. It excels at parameter documentation but lacks information about the return format, error conditions, or how the 'productivity summary' is structured. Without an output schema, the agent won't know what data to expect from this tool, which is a significant gap for a summary retrieval function.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds substantial value beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains the purpose of each parameter ('days: Number of days to analyze from today backwards'), provides defaults, clarifies parameter interactions ('start_date overrides days parameter'), gives format specifications ('YYYY-MM-DD format'), and includes concrete examples. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose as 'Get a comprehensive productivity summary for a specified time range', which includes a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('productivity summary') with scope ('for a specified time range'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_productivity_summary' (without time range) or 'time_tracking_summary', which could cause confusion.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides implied usage through parameter examples and defaults (e.g., 'default: 7 for weekly summary'), showing when to use days vs. start_date/end_date. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over similar siblings like 'get_productivity_summary' or 'time_tracking_summary', leaving the agent to 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.
GitHub Badge
Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:
- Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
- Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
- Evaluate tool definition quality.
Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.
Card Badge
Copy to your README.md:
Score Badge
Copy to your README.md:
Latest Blog Posts
- Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)By Om-Shree-0709 on .mcpAgent IdentityOAuth 2.1
- Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an InternBy Om-Shree-0709 on .Agent IdentityMCP SecurityOAuth Delegation
- Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)By Om-Shree-0709 on .Agentic AiPrompt InjectionWebAssembly
MCP directory API
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/maxsuel13/Amazing-Marvin-MCP'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server