action1-mcp

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation5/5
Every tool targets a distinct resource or action: whoami, organizations, endpoints (managed vs. discovered), groups, missing updates, installed apps, packages, vulnerabilities (with sub-resources), policies, automations, scripts, and reports. There is no overlap or ambiguity between tool purposes.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow the consistent 'action1_' prefix followed by a verb_noun pattern (list_*, get_*). Even whoami fits as a single verb. The naming is predictable and uniform across the entire set.
Tool Count4/5
21 tools is on the higher end but justified by the broad scope of endpoint management, vulnerability tracking, and reporting. Each tool covers a specific functional area without redundancy, though a few could potentially be consolidated.
Completeness4/5
The server provides comprehensive read/query coverage for endpoints, vulnerabilities, policies, and reports. However, it is explicitly read-only with no create/update/delete or execution capabilities, which limits it to auditing and visibility rather than full management. This is a minor gap given the evident purpose.
Average 3.9/5 across 21 of 21 tools scored. Lowest: 3.2/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 2 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under Apache 2.0.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

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

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

How is the quality score calculated?

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

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

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

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

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'List' implies a read-only operation, this is already evident from the tool name 'get_'. The description adds no additional behavioral context such as pagination behavior, error conditions, or side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It immediately communicates the core purpose without any filler, making it highly concise and scannable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple list operation, an output schema exists to detail return values, and the schema documents all parameters, the description is sufficient but not comprehensive. It could be improved by mentioning the source of group_id or limiting behavior, but these are covered in the schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides 100% coverage of parameter descriptions, including the note that group_id comes from action1_list_endpoint_groups. The description itself adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline for full schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List the endpoints in one group' clearly states the action (list) and resource (endpoints) with a specific scope (one group). It is distinguishable from sibling tools like list_endpoints (which lists all endpoints) and list_endpoint_groups (which lists groups), though it does not explicitly name these alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention that group_id should come from a prior call to action1_list_endpoint_groups, nor does it explain any logical relationship to other Action1 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, but it only states a basic listing action. It does not disclose pagination behavior, default limit handling, authentication requirements, or any side effects. The read-only nature is implied by 'List' but not explicitly stated.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single well-formed sentence with no redundant or unnecessary words. It conveys the essential information efficiently without padding.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is a simple list operation with optional parameters and an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. The description adequately states the object being listed and the scope ('in the organization'). However, given the lack of annotations, a brief note on pagination or default behavior would make it more complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% coverage for both parameters ('limit' and 'org_id'), each with clear descriptions and defaults. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'automations (scheduled policies)', which defines what the tool does. The parenthetical 'scheduled policies' helps distinguish it from the related 'list_policies' sibling, though it does not explicitly differentiate the scope or special filtering.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus other list tools like 'action1_list_policies' or 'action1_list_scripts'. It does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative contexts beyond a generic listing purpose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral details beyond the verb 'get', which implies a read operation. It does not mention return behavior, error handling, default parameter behavior, or potential side effects. The description is too thin to carry the burden alone.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words or repetition. It delivers the core purpose efficiently.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, output schema provided) and complete schema coverage, the description is minimally sufficient. It lacks explicit mention of default org_id behavior, but this is covered in the schema. Overall, the tool is adequately specified for a simple get operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema fully describes the parameter 'org_id' with its type, default, and meaning. The description adds no additional parameter context. With schema description coverage at 100%, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get one organization's details' clearly states the action (get) and resource (organization). It distinguishes itself from sibling 'action1_list_organizations' by specifying 'one' organization versus listing multiple.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention actions like listing organizations or when to prefer this over 'action1_list_organizations'. Usage context is only implied by the word 'one'.
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 does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, nor does it mention pagination behavior, response size limits, or org scoping beyond the parameter descriptions. The phrase 'configured in the tenant' adds slight context but is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that is direct, informative, and free of unnecessary elaboration. It front-loads the core action and resource, making it easy for an agent to quickly grasp the tool's purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list operation with two optional parameters and an output schema, the description adequately explains the resource and scope. It could mention read-only behavior or how it relates to policy results, but the output schema and parameter documentation fill most gaps, making it sufficiently complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides full descriptions for both parameters (limit and org_id) including defaults, so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not add any additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already documents, justifying the baseline score of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('policy instances') with a clarifying parenthetical ('deployments and remediations configured in the tenant'), which clearly states what the tool does. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like action1_get_policy_results, which focuses on results rather than instances.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no prerequisites. It only states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer appropriate use from the name and sibling context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It indicates a read operation ('Get') but does not disclose behavior such as whether the tool is read-only, how errors for unknown CVEs are handled, or any rate limits. The phrase 'as Action1 sees it' adds slight context but is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single 12-word sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. No wasted words or redundant information; it earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple get-by-id tool with an output schema, the description is complete enough. It conveys the scope ('as Action1 sees it in this organization') and the singular nature. The output schema covers return details, so the description need not explain them. Missing explicit error behavior is minor given the simplicity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline 3 applies. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema; it only states 'one CVE', which aligns with the required cve_id parameter but does not elaborate on org_id or parameter specifics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('details for one CVE'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling list_vulnerabilities which would retrieve multiple records. The phrase 'one CVE' makes the singular scope explicit.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies use for a single CVE via 'Get details for one CVE', but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus list_vulnerabilities or other siblings. No exclusions or alternatives are named.
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 for behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic action (listing) and resource type, but gives no information about pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, or potential side effects. The inclusion of the include_update_counts parameter hinting at slower queries is in the schema, not the description.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence of 10 words. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, and every word earns its place. The parenthetical clarifies the definition without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is a straightforward list operation with an output schema and fully documented parameters. The description, while brief, defines the resource clearly. It does not explain return values, but the output schema covers that. It lacks usage alternatives, yet the overall completeness is good for a simple read-only tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% (all four parameters have descriptions), so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional parameter context beyond the schema. It names no parameters, but the schema already provides sufficient semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action "List" and the specific resource "managed endpoints". The parenthetical "machines with the Action1 agent installed" distinguishes this from sibling tools like list_discovered_endpoints, making the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies this tool is for managed endpoints (as opposed to discovered ones), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_discovered_endpoints or get_endpoint. There is no mention of exclusions or preferred contexts.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'list' strongly implies a read-only, non-destructive operation, but the description does not explicitly state that it is side-effect-free, does not mention pagination or default limits, and does not disclose any potential rate limits or authorization requirements. Still, the behavior is straightforwardly transparent for a list operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that says exactly what the tool does with no filler or redundancy. Every word contributes to the meaning, making it optimally concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple, and the output schema plus full parameter coverage in the input schema already explains return values and parameter details. The description effectively communicates the core purpose. However, it could optionally mention that cve_id is required or that the operation is read-only, though these are partially inferable from the schema and verb. Overall, it is adequately complete for a tool of this complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema covers all three parameters (cve_id, limit, org_id) with individual descriptions, giving 100% schema coverage. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate—the schema does the heavy lifting and the description does not compensate or add further meaning.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List the endpoints affected by one CVE' uses a specific verb ('List'), a clear resource ('endpoints'), and a precise scope ('affected by one CVE'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like list_vulnerabilities (lists CVEs) and get_vulnerability (details about a CVE), making the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as list_endpoints (all endpoints) or get_vulnerability (CVE details). There are no explicit exclusions or alternative tool recommendations, leaving the usage context entirely implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The phrase 'Get full detail' implies a read operation, but it does not disclose any non-obvious behaviors such as potential latency, authentication requirements, error behavior for nonexistent IDs, or data freshness. Since it is a straightforward getter, the basics are clear, but there is no added behavioral context beyond the obvious.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the essential information without any wasted words. It is clear and concise, and no part of it is redundant with the schema or annotations.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple get-by-ID tool with full schema coverage and an output schema, the minimal description is largely sufficient. It states what the tool does and the one-line scope is enough. However, it could mention that it complements action1_list_endpoints (which lists endpoints) or that it provides 'full detail' in contrast to list views. Given the simplicity, this is a minor gap, so 4 rather than 5.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% and the parameter descriptions are detailed (e.g., org_id defaulting, endpoint_id source from action1_list_endpoints, include_update_counts rationale and default). The tool description itself adds no parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Per the rubric, a baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get full detail for one managed endpoint' uses a specific verb (Get), a specific resource (managed endpoint), and a specific scope (one). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like action1_list_endpoints, which list many endpoints, and action1_get_endpoint_group_members, which returns members of a group. No ambiguity or tautology.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies a use case: you need full details for a single endpoint. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it state any exclusions (e.g., 'use list_endpoints to get multiple endpoints'). The context from sibling names helps, but the description itself offers no direct guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It indicates a read-only list operation, but does not mention pagination, rate limits, or auth requirements. The added context about targeting is helpful, but the description remains minimal in disclosing behavior beyond the basic 'list' action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two concise sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core action and the second sentence provides valuable context about the resource's role in the system.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple list operation with two optional parameters and an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. The targeting context helps the agent understand when this tool is relevant, and the output schema handles return value expectations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the parameters are fully described in the schema. The description does not add any additional meaning to the parameters (limit, org_id), so it meets the baseline of 3 without adding extra value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('List endpoint groups') with a specific verb and resource. It also adds context by explaining that endpoint groups are what policies and automations target, which distinguishes this tool from siblings like list_endpoints or list_endpoint_group_members.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use the tool (when you need to see endpoint groups as targeting entities for policies/automations), but it does not explicitly state alternatives or when not to use it. It gives useful context but lacks direct exclusion or comparison to sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. The verb 'List' implies a read-only operation, and the scope is defined. However, it does not mention pagination, required permissions, or any additional behavioral details. It adds some value beyond the name but is minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no redundant words or additional filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity of the tool and the well-documented schema plus an output schema, the description provides the essential purpose. It lacks usage context or examples but is adequate for a straightforward list operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, so each of the 5 parameters is already well-documented. The description adds no additional parameter information, warranting the baseline score of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'List' with a resource 'updates missing' and scope 'across the organization's endpoints', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_vulnerabilities and list_endpoints.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the usage (to see missing updates) but does not state when to prefer this over alternatives like list_vulnerabilities, nor any exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the scope of listing CVEs but does not elaborate on pagination, filtering, or output format. The description is minimally informative but not misleading.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the tool's purpose efficiently without redundant content. It is appropriately sized and every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simple interface with optional parameters and an existing output schema, the description is complete enough for a basic list tool. It omits mention of filters or limit, but the schema covers those details, making the description adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already documents all three parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the description adds no additional semantic value. The baseline of 3 applies for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'List' with the resource 'CVEs' and scope 'across the organization's endpoints', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_vulnerability or list_vulnerability_endpoints. It unambiguously states what the tool does.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives; it merely states what it does. Usage is implied but no exclusions or alternative tool references are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description only states the core function. It does not disclose pagination, sorting, or side effects, though the output schema exists. The read-only nature is implied but not explicitly stated, leaving some behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It communicates the essential purpose and scope efficiently.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is adequate for a straightforward list operation, and the output schema covers return values. However, with no annotations and four optional parameters, a bit more context (e.g., how it relates to list_packages or any pagination behavior) would make it more complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so each parameter already has a description. The tool description adds high-level scope context (tenant-wide vs endpoint-specific) but does not provide additional parameter-level detail beyond what the schema offers.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'List' and resource 'installed software', and clearly states the scope as 'tenant-wide or for one endpoint', distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_endpoints or list_packages.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'tenant-wide or for one endpoint' provides clear usage context, indicating the two invocation modes. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the scope guidance is sufficient for most cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys a read-only 'Show' operation and identifies the result states, but it does not mention pagination/limit behavior, how invalid policy IDs are handled, or any authorization requirements. This is adequate but not rich.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It uses a dash to efficiently convey the statuses covered, and every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema and fully documented parameters, the description is complete enough: it identifies the object (policy results), scope (per-endpoint), and included statuses. It doesn't explain response formatting, but the output schema covers that, and there are no nested objects or complex behaviors to warn about.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the description doesn't need to explain parameters. The tool description adds only contextual meaning (results are per-endpoint) but no parameter syntax or semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Show') and resource ('per-endpoint results for one policy'), and it names the outcome statuses (succeeded, failed, pending). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like action1_list_policies, which list policies rather than retrieving results for a specific policy.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'for one policy' establishes clear context that this is for drilling into results of a single policy. Although it doesn't name exclusions or explicit alternatives, the policy_id parameter description references action1_list_policies, reinforcing when it's appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clarifies that the tool lists definitions (not report data) and points to the companion data-reading tool, but it does not mention additional behavioral details such as pagination, rate limits, or permission requirements. The read-only nature is implied by 'List' but not explicitly stated.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two short sentences with no redundant wording. It front-loads the primary purpose and adds a practical pairing note, earning every word's place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no nested objects, output schema present), the description sufficiently covers what the tool does and how to proceed. It does not need to explain return values since an output schema exists. A slight improvement could be mentioning the limit's effect, but that is already in the schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100% for the only parameter 'limit', so the schema fully documents its meaning. The tool description adds no extra parameter details, making the baseline of 3 appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'report definitions' with scope 'in the tenant'. It also distinguishes the tool from its sibling action1_get_report_data by noting that it lists definitions, not the data itself, making its role unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear usage context by explicitly pairing with action1_get_report_data to read one, implying that this tool is for discovering available report definitions first. It does not explicitly state exclusions or alternatives, but the pairing guidance is strong enough to guide correct usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently conveys the key behavioral trait: these are unmanaged devices (no agent installed), which is essential for interpreting results. It does not mention read-only status or pagination details, but the output schema covers return structure, and the list operation's safety is implied. The description adds meaningful context beyond a bare 'list' statement.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two concise sentences. The first sentence front-loads the action and scope; the second adds a practical use case. No wasted words, and every clause contributes value, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with two optional parameters and an output schema. The description adequately covers the purpose, scope (unmanaged vs. managed), and a common use case. It lacks explicit mention of alternatives, but sibling tool names and the clear distinction suffice for contextual completeness. A 5 might be possible, but the description could slightly elaborate on what 'discovered' means in terms of network scanning, so 4 is justified.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%; both limit and org_id are clearly described in the schema. The tool description does not add extra meaning or usage details for the parameters beyond what the schema provides. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists discovered but unmanaged devices, specifying 'seen on the network, no agent installed.' This is a specific verb+resource+scope that directly differentiates it from the sibling tool action1_list_endpoints, which presumably lists managed endpoints.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides a clear usage context: 'Useful for finding coverage gaps: machines that exist but are not being patched.' It implies when to use this tool (to find unmanaged devices) without explicitly naming alternatives or exclusions. The contrast with managed endpoints is evident from the wording, offering practical guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states 'Read-only' and clarifies that it 'does not create or run one,' which is a key behavioral trait. It does not cover permissions or rate limits, but for a read-only list operation, this level of disclosure is adequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is only two sentences and front-loads the primary purpose. Every word contributes meaning: the first sentence states the action and scope, and the second sentence clarifies the read-only nature. No wasted space.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
As a read-only list tool with a fully self-describing schema and an output schema present, the description is sufficient for correct invocation. It could optionally explain what a 'remediation' is or mention the org_id default, but the schema already covers those details. Overall, it is complete enough for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already has 100% coverage with descriptions for limit, cve_id, and org_id. The description adds no extra parameter-specific meaning beyond implying that the tool is specific to 'one CVE,' which aligns with the required cve_id. Thus, the baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'List remediations already configured for one CVE,' using a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like action1_list_vulnerabilities and action1_get_vulnerability by focusing on remediations rather than the vulnerabilities themselves.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It provides clear context for when to use the tool (to see existing remediations for a specific CVE) and explicitly states it does not create or run one, which is a useful exclusion. However, it does not name alternative tools or provide more specific when-not-to-use guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses two important behavioral traits: the data is 'last computed' (cached) and the tool 'does not trigger a requery.' This is exactly the kind of behavioral nuance an agent needs to avoid incorrect assumptions about freshness. It doesn't mention pagination or auth, but the core caveat is covered.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with a clear purpose statement followed by a critical caveat. Every word earns its place; no redundancy or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (4 params, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It states what the tool does, what it returns, and the key behavioral limitation. The schema covers parameters and the output schema covers return structure, so nothing essential is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with each parameter fully described (e.g., report_id from action1_list_reports, filters passed verbatim). The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb+resource: 'Read the rows of one report.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like action1_list_reports, which list reports rather than reading their data. The scope is explicit ('one report') with no ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context: it returns Action1's last computed data and does not trigger a requery, so figures can lag the console. This implicitly tells the agent when to use it (when cached data is acceptable) and when not to (when fresh data is required). It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools, but the caveat is actionable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It adds a meaningful constraint: results are limited to what the credentials can see, implying a scoped view. It does not disclose pagination or whether only active orgs are returned, but for a list tool the core behavioral trait (credential scoping) is conveyed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with zero filler. The second sentence earns its place by providing crucial cross-tool context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With only one optional parameter, an output schema present, and no nested objects, the description is sufficient. It explains what the tool does and why it matters, while the output schema covers return structure. No significant gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% – the single parameter 'limit' is already described. The tool description adds no extra meaning about the parameter itself, though the mention of 'org_id' hints at the output. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema fully covers parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('organizations (tenants)') plus a scoping phrase ('these credentials can see'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling action1_get_organization, which likely retrieves a single org.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The second sentence provides explicit context: 'Most other tools need an `org_id` from here.' This tells the agent when to use the tool (to obtain an org_id for downstream tools) without naming specific alternatives. It stops short of explicit exclusions (e.g., when not to use), but the guidance is strong.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is read-only (does not deploy anything) and scopes to the repository, which prevents misuse. It does not mention pagination or rate limits, but the explicit non-destructive assertion is valuable for an agent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences with no filler. The main action is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds an important clarification without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with two optional parameters and an output schema; the description fully explains the tool's purpose and scope. It is complete for a list operation, especially given the output schema covers return structure.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides; it focuses on the tool's purpose rather than the limit/filters parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists app packages from the Action1 software repository with the specific verb 'List' and resource. It further distinguishes from deployment by explicitly noting 'this tool does not deploy anything,' which differentiates it from potential sibling tools that install or deploy.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides usage context by explaining these packages are 'what a deployment *could* install,' implying this tool is for viewing available packages before deployment. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions, but the clarification against deployment is a form of usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It clearly states the tool is read-only in that it cannot execute scripts, and the intended audit use case implies no side effects. It does not mention pagination or other behavioral details, but for a simple list tool this is sufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and every sentence contributes value. No redundant information is present.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description provides the necessary core purpose, usage context, and a critical limitation. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage for the single parameter is 100%, with the schema already describing 'limit' as 'max scripts to return'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists scripts available in the tenant, using a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes the tool from execution actions by explicitly noting it cannot execute them, which differentiates it from potential sibling tools like automation execution.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides a clear usage context ('auditing what automation could run') and a when-not-to-use indication ('This tool cannot execute them'). However, it does not name alternative tools explicitly, though none are present among siblings for executing scripts.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns the `/Me` object with account identity and granted permissions, and explains its diagnostic role in 403 scenarios. It does not explicitly state it is read-only, but the 'Show' wording and whoami semantics imply that, and the description is otherwise transparent about its behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, a practical usage note, and a concise 'Returns' summary. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no parameters and an output schema provided, the description covers purpose, when to use it, and what it returns. It is fully complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly focuses on return values and usage context rather than parameters, as there is nothing to document.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool shows which Action1 identity the API credentials map to and their permissions. This is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like action1_list_organizations or action1_get_endpoint, which work with different resources.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly instructs to use this tool first when a call fails with 403, and explains how it diagnoses whether the credential lacks access to the requested organization. This is concrete, actionable guidance that is not present in sibling descriptions.
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:

[![action1-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/molnkontakt/action1-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/molnkontakt/action1-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![action1-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/molnkontakt/action1-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/molnkontakt/action1-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

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

MCP directory API

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

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/molnkontakt/action1-mcp'

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