MyWhoosh MCP Server

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation2/5
Multiple tools have overlapping purposes, such as getAllPlayerLeaderboards vs getArcadeLeaderboard, getChallenges vs getMissions vs getMissionProgress, and getCustomWorkoutUpload vs downloadCustomWorkoutsFromS3. These similar names and descriptions can easily confuse an agent.
Naming Consistency4/5
The naming follows a consistent camelCase verb_noun pattern, with most tools using 'get' as the verb. Minor deviations like 'login' (verb only) and 'downloadCustomWorkoutsFromS3' (extra qualifier) exist but do not obscure the overall predictable style.
Tool Count2/5
With 47 tools, the server is heavily overloaded. This far exceeds the typical well-scoped range of 3-15 tools and makes it difficult for an agent to navigate, even though the domain is broad.
Completeness3/5
The surface covers major areas like authentication, workouts, tasks, events, and shop, but lacks obvious lifecycle operations such as updating tasks (only create/delete) and has no direct single-workout retrieval (only bulk download methods). These gaps require agent workarounds but are not fatal.
Average 3.5/5 across 47 of 47 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- 0 of 1 community issues answered or closed in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under Apache 2.0.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

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

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

How is the quality score calculated?

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

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

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

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

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only indicates a read operation ('Get') but does not describe the return format, data scope, sorting, or any other behavioral traits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, short sentence with no unnecessary words. While concise, it is under-specified and adds little beyond the tool name.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations, no output schema, and the presence of a similar sibling tool (getAllPlayerLeaderboards), the description is incomplete. It does not clarify what the arcade leaderboard contains or how it differs from all-player leaderboards.
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 schema has no parameters, so the description does not need to explain parameter usage. A baseline score of 4 is appropriate for zero-parameter tools.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get arcade mode leaderboard' clearly indicates a retrieval operation for a specific leaderboard type. It distinguishes from sibling getAllPlayerLeaderboards by specifying 'arcade mode', though it largely restates the tool name.
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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool versus getAllPlayerLeaderboards or other leaderboard tools, and gives no exclusions or 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. The word 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not mention auth needs, return format, or any state implications, leaving significant ambiguity.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence with no filler words, making it efficient and front-loaded. It is concise, though the minimalism sacrifices helpful context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no annotations, no output schema, and zero parameters, the description should compensate by explaining what the progress represents and how it relates to sibling tools. It does neither, leaving the tool under-specified for an agent trying to select and invoke it 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?
This tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100% and there are no parameter semantics to clarify. The baseline of 4 is appropriate because no additional parameter information is needed.
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 states a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('mission challenge progress'), giving a basic sense of the operation. However, it does not specify whose progress is returned or how this differs from sibling tools like getMissions or getSeasonPassProgress.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling getter tools, the description does not clarify whether this is the right choice for accessing mission challenge progress or another tool such as getMissions.
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 only states 'Get' which implies a read operation, but it does not mention response format, authentication requirements, pagination, or any side effects. This is minimal for a tool with no structured annotations.
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 short sentence with no unnecessary words. It is highly concise and structured for quick parsing, earning a perfect score for conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has no output schema, no annotations, and a very brief description. The agent is left without understanding what 'available missions and challenges' means, what the response shape is, or how this tool differs from closely related siblings. This makes the description incomplete for a tool of even this simplicity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has no parameters and an empty input schema, so the description has nothing to add beyond what the schema already shows. With zero parameters, the baseline of 4 applies, and the description does not introduce any ambiguity.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves available missions and challenges, using a specific verb and resource. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like getMissionProgress, though it does not explicitly differentiate from getChallenges, which likely focuses solely on challenges. Overall, the purpose is clear.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as getChallenges or getMissionProgress. The description provides no context on use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without direction for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only says 'Get,' implying a read operation, but it does not state return format, side effects, or any other behavioral context. For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence of seven words, with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity, earning a perfect score for conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description is the only source of information about what the tool returns. The description states what it retrieves but gives no indication of the output format, structure, or any other contextual detail. This makes it incomplete for an agent trying to use the tool effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has no parameters, so the schema coverage is effectively 100%. According to the guidelines, a zero-parameter tool gets a baseline of 4, and the description does not need to explain parameters. This score reflects that baseline.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'video on demand content for workouts,' making the tool's purpose understandable. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, but the unique name 'getVOD' and the specific context of workouts help distinguish it. This warrants a 4 rather than a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or specific scenarios. It is a bare one-sentence statement with no context about intended use cases. This falls under 'no guidance'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Update' without detailing whether the update is a full replacement, partial merge, requires authentication, or what the return value is. The examples provide a small insight into content but not behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently conveys the core purpose and examples in under 10 words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having only one parameter, the description lacks crucial details for a mutation: no behavior semantics (full vs partial update), no return value, no usage prerequisites, and the JSON structure is only vaguely hinted with 'etc.' The absence of annotations and output schema makes this incomplete.
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 schema defines a single param (playerData) as 'Stringified JSON of player data structure'. The description adds meaningful context by suggesting the JSON contains 'equipment, settings, etc.', giving the agent a clearer idea of what data to pass. This goes beyond the schema's vague description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool 'Update player profile data' with examples (equipment, settings), specifying the verb and resource. It is distinct from sibling get/mutation tools in that it's the only one targeting player profile data, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself.
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 merely states the action without any context, use cases, or exclusions, so the agent is left to infer from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure, but it merely restates the delete action. It does not mention permanence, permissions, or side effects on related data.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the key information. No word is wasted, making it easily scannable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits crucial context such as reversibility, error handling, or cascading effects. It is minimally viable but leaves the agent with significant unknowns.
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 already fully describes the sole parameter taskId with 'Task ID to delete'. The tool description adds no additional semantic meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (delete) and the resource (calendar task), which distinguishes it from siblings like createTask. The verb+resource combination is specific and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage 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, such as createTask or getDateRangeTaskList. The description only states what it does, leaving usage context to the agent's inference.
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 disclosing behavior. It only states the action and does not mention whether the operation is read-only, what the return format is, or any side effects. For a download tool, some of this may be inferred, but it is not explicitly disclosed.
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 is concise and directly communicates the action and resource, making it an efficient and appropriately sized description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description must convey the action and resource clearly, which it does. However, 'calendar workouts' is ambiguous, and with multiple sibling download tools, it does not fully distinguish the unique context or clarify what the download entails. Adequate but with room for more specificity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. There are no parameter details to explain, and the description does not need to compensate for any schema gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the action as 'Download' and the resource as 'calendar workouts for the player.' It is distinguishable from sibling download tools like downloadFavoriteWorkouts and downloadCustomWorkoutsFromS3 by the term 'calendar,' though the exact meaning of 'calendar workouts' is left undefined.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like downloadFavoriteWorkouts or downloadCustomWorkoutsFromS3. There is no context about prerequisites, scenarios, or exclusions, leaving the agent without direction for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It does not mention side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or explicitly state this is a read-only operation beyond the 'Get' verb.
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 one sentence, front-loaded with the verb and object, and contains no redundant words. It is efficient and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple (no params, no output schema), and the description lists content areas (worlds, version info, settings). However, it does not describe the return format or how this config relates to other config tools, leaving some gaps.
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 schema provides complete coverage. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description does not need to add parameter details.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses 'Get' as a specific verb and identifies the resource as 'game configuration,' listing contents (worlds, version info, settings). It is clear but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like getAgeConfig or getBundleInfo.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention use cases, prerequisites, or alternative tools for related data.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a read operation ('Get list') but does not describe the composition of the list, potential empty results, or any other behavioral trait. Minimal information.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise for a tool with no parameters.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the low complexity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate but leaves the agent without details about the return format or what constitutes a 'group workout'. More context would be helpful but is not critical.
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 schema is fully covered. Baseline is 4 because there is nothing for the description to add regarding parameter meaning.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the action ('Get list') and the resource ('available group workouts'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by naming a specific resource type, though it lacks additional scope or filtering details.
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 the many sibling get* tools. There is no mention of alternatives, prerequisites, or contexts in which this tool is preferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description must convey behavioral traits. 'Get' implies a read operation, but the description does not clarify potential edge cases, return format, or any special behavior. It adds minimal behavioral context beyond the verb itself.
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 extra words, placing the verb first. It is concise and structured clearly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description minimally covers the purpose but lacks details about the return value or usage context. It is adequate but leaves gaps, such as what the configuration includes and when this tool is relevant.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and the input schema shows no properties. The description does not need to explain parameters because there are none, aligning with the baseline of 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Get' with a resource 'pacer bot configurations for group rides', which clearly identifies the tool's function. It is distinct from sibling tools like getControllableBots and getGroupWorkouts by naming a specific configuration type, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them.
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 other getter tools, nor are any prerequisites or conditions stated. The description simply states what it does without contextual 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, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action, not whether this is a read-only operation, what side effects (if any) exist, or what the response contains. For a zero-parameter tool, some basic expectation of safety/read-only is implied 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?
A single, concise sentence with no redundancy. It immediately states the action and resource, making it easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple zero-parameter getter, the description is mostly adequate, but it lacks detail about what 'pending ride' actually includes and what the return data looks like. Since there's no output schema, this is a gap that leaves some ambiguity.
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 input schema is effectively complete. The description doesn't need to explain parameter details, and it adds a small contextual note about the purpose, earning the baseline score for a no-parameter tool.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Get') and names the resource ('pending ride data'), with a clear purpose ('for recovery'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools as a unique resource, though 'pending ride' is somewhat vague about what constitutes 'pending'.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It doesn't mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or comparison with other getter tools, leaving the agent to infer its usage solely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it only states the read action and the data categories. It does not disclose whether authentication is required, whether this is a safe read-only operation, or what the response format looks like. This is minimal disclosure for a tool with zero structured context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, and includes useful enumerations. There is no filler or redundancy, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given zero parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is the sole source of context. It covers the general content (stats, equipment, settings) but omits critical details such as whether it returns the current player, whether authentication is needed, and any edge-case behavior. It is adequate but not complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the description's mention of 'stats, equipment, and settings' clarifies the scope of the returned dataset. Schema coverage is complete (empty schema), and the description aligns with the baseline expectation for no-parameter tools.
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 uses the specific verb 'Get' with the resource 'player profile data' and enumerates content areas ('stats, equipment, and settings'), distinguishing it from sibling getters focused on specific resources like getCoaches or getRoutes. It loses a point for not clarifying whether this is the current authenticated player or a player ID parameter.
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 the many other get* tools in the sibling list. It also does not mention any prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer applicability from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention authentication, rate limits, or whether the data is real-time or cached. The verb 'Get' implies read-only, but no additional behavioral context is provided.
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 concisely states the tool's purpose without any filler or redundant information. It is appropriately sized for a simple zero-parameter getter.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple getter with no parameters, the description is minimally viable but lacks context to distinguish it from many similar sibling tools. It also provides no information about the output structure, which could be relevant given there is no output schema.
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 schema trivially covers 100% of the parameter definitions. There is no parameter ambiguity, and the baseline of 4 applies because no parameter detail is needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resources 'player trophies and earned jerseys', making the tool's purpose specific. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like getPlayerAchievements or getPlayerData, which are similar getters, so it lacks distinctiveness.
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 relative to alternatives. It only says what it does without any context for tool selection, such as 'use this instead of ...'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action (registering an account) without detailing success/failure behavior, side effects, authentication requirements, or whether a session is created.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no fluff. It front-loads the core purpose and is appropriately concise for a simple registration operation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (13 parameters, 10 required) and the absence of annotations or an output schema, this one-sentence description is insufficient. It does not explain what happens after registration, expected return values, or any additional context an agent would need to safely invoke it.
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, so the tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what's already in the schema. Baseline 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 clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Register') and resource ('a new MyWhoosh user account'). It distinguishes this from sibling tools like login or updatePlayerData, making it 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 offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or contrast with login or other account-related tools, leaving usage inference only to the tool's name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without revealing whether the deletion is permanent, requires permissions, or has side effects. This adds little beyond the tool name, lacking critical context for a destructive operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no redundant words. It is appropriately concise for the tool's simplicity, though it lacks depth that would make it more informative.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no annotations, no output schema, and a simple schema, the description has room to compensate but does not. It omits critical details like the permanent nature of deletion or any preconditions, leaving the agent to make assumptions about the tool's impact.
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 with a clear description of the workoutId parameter. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline 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 action ('Delete') and the specific resource ('a custom workout from MyWhoosh'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like deleteTask or uploadCustomWorkout. It is a specific verb+resource with clear scope.
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 usage is implied by the tool name and description: use when you want to delete a custom workout. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., deleteTask for tasks), nor any prerequisites or exclusions mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the purpose ('Get... configurations') and does not disclose read-only status, return format, or any edge cases. The verb 'Get' implies a read operation but this is not explicitly stated, leaving a transparency gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with an illustrative list ('Smasher, Climber, Attacker, etc.'). It is front-loaded with the primary action and resource, and every word contributes meaning without unnecessary fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter getter without annotations or output schema, the description gives the core purpose but lacks details about the return structure or content of the configurations. It does not clarify whether it returns a list, specific fields, or behavior when no bots are available, leaving some ambiguity.
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 schema coverage is complete and there is no need for parameter documentation. The description's examples of bot types provide useful context about the returned data, which is sufficient given the absence of parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the verb 'Get' with the resource 'controllable companion bot configurations' and lists examples (Smasher, Climber, Attacker), making the purpose clear. It is specific enough to distinguish from unrelated getters, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling getPacerBot.
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?
No explicit usage guidance or alternatives are provided. The intended use is implied by the name and description: to retrieve controllable companion bot configurations. But there is no mention of when not to use it or how it relates to similar tools like getPacerBot.
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 implies a read-only operation via 'Get', but does not state whether the tool is safe, what it returns, or any side effects. The mention of 'wind effect quadrants' adds some domain context but does not explain behavioral traits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource. It earns its place without wasted words. However, it is extremely terse and could include more detail without becoming verbose, so 4 rather than 5.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is inadequate for an agent given the lack of output schema and annotations. It does not explain what a 'drafting peloton configuration' contains, what 'wind effect quadrants' are, or what the response looks like. The tool appears domain-specific, and the description provides insufficient context for correct invocation or interpretation of results.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and the schema has 100% coverage (empty properties object). Per baseline, a no-parameter tool does not require parameter explanation. The description adds no parameter semantics, but none are needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Get' and identifies the exact resource 'drafting peloton configuration with wind effect quadrants'. It clearly distinguishes this tool from the sibling tools, as none of them mention drafting peloton or wind effect quadrants.
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 any context, prerequisites, or exclusions. With many sibling getter tools, the lack of differentiation leaves the agent uncertain about appropriate usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the tool returns only upcoming and current events, which is useful context. However, it does not mention pagination, sorting, or the effect of the optional sportsMode parameter on the returned list, leaving some ambiguity.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single clear sentence with no redundant information. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and is appropriately concise for such a simple tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description provides the core purpose but is minimal given the absence of annotations and output schema. It does not explain the returned event structure or clarify what qualifies as an event, though the schema covers the single parameter. Some additional context could improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already provides a description for the only parameter (sportsMode: 'Sports mode filter'), and schema coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, 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 and resource ('Get list of events') and specifies the temporal scope ('upcoming and current'). It is distinguishable from sibling tools by resource name, but does not explicitly differentiate from potentially overlapping tools like getChallenges or getGroupWorkouts.
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 only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the name alone, which is insufficient given the large number of sibling get* tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only says 'Get player distance statistics,' which implies a read operation, but does not describe side effects, return format, units, authentication, or any constraints beyond the parameter.
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 states the action and object directly, 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.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the low complexity (one parameter, no output schema) and full schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, it does not clarify what 'distance statistics' includes, whether it returns daily breakdowns or totals, or any other implicit details an agent might need for confident invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already fully documents the single 'days' parameter with description and default, so the description's 'for a number of days' adds little new semantic meaning. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline 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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('player distance statistics') with a time qualifier ('for a number of days'). It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like getPlayerData or getCalculations by focusing on distance statistics over a time period.
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 the many sibling getters, nor does it mention any exclusions or alternatives. The only implied usage is 'when you need player distance stats,' but there is no explicit context or comparative guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the basic function ('Get season pass progress') without explaining return format, potential side effects, authentication needs, or any other behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that immediately communicates the tool's purpose with no filler or redundant information. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded.
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 tool has only one parameter and no output schema. While the description covers the input, it does not explain what 'progress' includes (e.g., levels, XP, rewards), leaving some ambiguity about the return value. However, given the tool's simplicity and clear input schema, it is minimally 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 sole parameter seasonId is fully described in the schema ('Season ID (UUID)'). The description reinforces this with 'for a specific season' but adds no additional semantic value beyond the schema, so the baseline 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's function with a specific verb ('Get'), resource ('season pass progress'), and scope ('for a specific season'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like getMissionProgress by naming a unique resource not covered elsewhere.
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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not specify prerequisites, such as requiring a valid season ID, nor does it mention related tools for mission or challenge progress where users might mistakenly look.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action but omits side effects (e.g., whether redemption is irreversible, if coins/gems are added to the player's account, or what happens with invalid codes). This is a mutation tool, so more detail about expected behavior is warranted.
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 that directly communicates the tool's purpose without any extraneous information. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple single-parameter tool without annotations or an output schema, the description covers the basic purpose but lacks details about the return value or any confirmation of redemption. It is adequate but not complete in terms of expected behavior.
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 parameter 'couponCode' is already well-documented in the schema as 'Coupon code to redeem'. The description adds no new meaning beyond restating 'coupon code' in the tool's purpose. With 100% schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Redeem a coupon code') and its purpose ('for coins or gems'). The verb 'redeem' is specific and distinguishes this tool from all sibling tools, none of which perform redemption.
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. While the action is intuitive, there is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., having a valid coupon code) or when not to use it. The description is purely declarative with no contextual advice.
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 only states that the tool retrieves metadata, implying a read operation, but does not specify return format, pagination, sorting, authentication, or any side effects. This is inadequate for a tool with zero annotation support.
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 or redundant information. Every word contributes to the purpose, making it appropriately concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description is insufficiently complete. It mentions that the tool returns metadata but does not describe the structure or content of that metadata, nor does it provide usage context or alternative guidance. More information is needed for an agent to fully understand what to expect.
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 score is 4 as per the rubric. The description correctly does not need to explain parameter details, and the empty schema already fully covers the parameter space.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific verb ('Get') and resource ('garage/shop items metadata') with examples ('bikes, equipment'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. It distinguishes itself from sibling getters by targeting a unique resource that none of the other tools mention.
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 fails to mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative tools, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the name and one-line 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 the full burden. It only states the action ('Download') without disclosing side effects, return format, authentication needs, or whether any player-specific context is required. The term 'for the player' hints at scoping but is not explicit.
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 wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it highly concise for a simple zero-parameter tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is adequate for a straightforward download tool, but it lacks context about how it differs from sibling download tools or what 'favorite workouts' entails. Given the zero-parameter schema and absence of annotations, the description is the only source of information, yet it leaves some ambiguity.
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 schema coverage is trivially complete. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but the baseline for 0-param tools is 4, which applies here.
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 (Download) and resource (favorite workouts), clearly stating what it does. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like downloadCalendarWorkouts and downloadCustomWorkoutsFromS3 by targeting 'favorite' workouts specifically.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. No alternatives, exclusions, or context are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but only says 'Get...', which implies a read operation without detailing return format, side effects, or dependencies. It lacks explicit disclaimers about read-only behavior or any config-specific traits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no extraneous content, fully front-loaded and efficient.
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 minimal and sufficient for a simple 0-param getter, but it could benefit from context on what the configuration controls or when to call it. Given the lack of output schema and annotations, it is acceptable but not rich.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has no parameters, so the description does not need to explain parameter semantics. Per the rubric, 0 parameters warrants a baseline of 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Get' with the resource 'age-based feature access configuration', clearly stating what the tool does. It is distinct from sibling getter tools by focusing on a particular configuration type.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool or how it relates to other getter tools. The description merely states the purpose without specifying contexts, prerequisites, or 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 disclosing behavioral traits. It only states what data is retrieved, but does not mention whether this is a read-only operation, any side effects, or prerequisites. The 'get' prefix implies read-only, but explicit disclosure is absent.
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 immediately conveys the tool's purpose. It is concise, front-loaded with the action, and contains no superfluous information.
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?
With only one optional parameter, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is adequate but lacks details about the return format or how currentLevel influences the results. It does not reference any edge cases or additional context, making it minimally complete for a simple retrieval 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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage for the only parameter (currentLevel: 'Current player level'). The description's mention of 'level progression data' indirectly relates to the parameter but does not add syntax or format details beyond what the schema already provides. 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 the tool's function: retrieving XP and coin reward calculations and level progression data. The verb 'Get' combined with specific resources (XP, coin rewards, level progression) makes the purpose unambiguous and distinguishes it from other get* siblings that focus on different domains.
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 tool is for accessing reward/level data, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like getPlayerData or getGameTitleData. There are no exclusions or alternative tool references, so usage context is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly indicates a read operation returning all available items, which implies no filtering or side effects. However, it does not disclose details like authorization requirements, pagination, or what 'available' means, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It directly states the action and resource, 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.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no parameters and a simple read-only purpose, the description is largely complete for basic invocation. It states what the tool returns, though it omits output structure and does not clarify relationship to overlapping sibling tools, which are minor gaps given the low complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The baseline of 4 applies because no additional parameter description is needed.
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 uses the specific verb 'Get' and names a clear resource: 'all available challenges and achievements.' It is not a tautology and conveys the tool's scope. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like getMissions or getPlayerAchievements, which may overlap in meaning.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as getMissions or getPlayerAchievements. The phrase 'all available' hints at a broad unfiltered fetch, but there is no explicit context, exclusion, or alternative recommendation.
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 present, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It only says 'Get list,' implying a read-only operation, but omits details on rate limits, pagination, or whether the list is complete or filtered. This leaves the agent uncertain about return 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?
A single clear sentence that wastes no words, front-loading the action and resource immediately. Every word contributes to meaning.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter list fetch, 'Get list of available coaches' is minimal but arguably invocable. However, with no output schema or annotations, the agent lacks information about response structure or any filtering behavior, so the description is adequate but not rich.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so the description has nothing to add regarding parameter semantics. The baseline of 4 applies due to the absence of 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 the specific verb 'Get' and the resource 'list of available coaches,' clearly distinguishing this tool from siblings targeting players, routes, or missions. The qualifier 'available' adds precision about the response scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus other list-oriented tools like getAllPlayerLeaderboards or getGroupWorkouts. No prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative tools 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read-like operation by returning a URL, but it does not mention whether the URL is pre-signed, expires, requires authentication, or has any prerequisites. For a simple getter, the description is adequate but not rich in behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word is meaningful, with no 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?
For a simple tool with no input parameters and no output schema, the description covers the primary purpose and return value (an S3 URL). However, it leaves out minor contextual details such as whether the URL is user-specific, temporary, or requires the user to have uploaded custom workouts. Still, it is largely complete given the tool's low complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and the schema is empty with 100% coverage. Per the rule, baseline is 4 when there are no parameters. The description does not need to add parameter meaning, and it does not.
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 a specific action: 'Get S3 URL for downloading custom workouts.' It identifies the resource (custom workouts) and the outcome (an S3 URL). However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'downloadCustomWorkoutsFromS3', which also relates to downloading custom workouts, so the differentiation is only implicit through the word 'URL'.
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 the sibling tools like downloadCustomWorkoutsFromS3, uploadCustomWorkout, or deleteCustomWorkout. The description gives no context about prerequisites, alternatives, 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 only says 'Get' which implies a read operation, but provides no details about authentication, response format, pagination, or any other behavior. This is minimal disclosure.
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 efficiently communicates the tool's purpose with no redundant or filler content. It is optimally concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity of the tool (no params, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate, but it omits what the agent can expect in the response (e.g., data structure, list vs. object). It also lacks any mention of when to use it, which is essential when many similar tools exist.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and the input schema is empty, so the schema fully covers parameter semantics. The description adds value by hinting at the type of data returned (e.g., Strava, Garmin), but no parameter explanation is needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and the resource ('connected fitness networks') with concrete examples (Strava, Garmin), making the tool's purpose immediately obvious. It is distinct from sibling tools, which all target other specific data domains.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Since there are many sibling get* tools for different data types, the description does not help an agent decide when this one is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral transparency. It implies a read operation via 'Get', but does not disclose return format, authorization requirements, or potential 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, concise sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and directly states the tool's purpose, making it efficient for an agent to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter getter with no output schema, the description is minimal but leaves ambiguity about what 'gate information' includes and what the response looks like. It is adequate for a simple lookup but lacks enough detail to fully set agent expectations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100% (empty schema), so the description does not need to add parameter details. The baseline score of 4 applies because there are no parameters to explain.
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 'Get' with the resource 'treasure hunt gate information', clearly indicating what the tool does. It is distinct from sibling tools, none of which reference treasure hunts, so an agent can confidently select it.
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 only states the basic action, with no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or related tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool gets counts but does not disclose whether it is read-only, requires authentication, or what the response structure looks like. It also fails to mention potential side effects or data source characteristics. Minimal behavioral information is provided.
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 with no redundancy or filler. It conveys the necessary information efficiently, which is appropriate for the tool's simplicity.
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 tool has no parameters and no output schema, so the description is the primary source of information. It covers the core function but omits expected response format, data source, and operational details like how 'current' is defined or whether authentication is needed. These gaps are significant for an agent relying solely on the description.
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?
There are zero parameters in the schema, so the description has nothing to explain regarding parameters. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description's explanation of the tool's purpose is clear, even though it adds no parameter-specific details.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get current player and bot counts per world and route.' This uses a specific verb ('Get') and identifies the exact resource (player/bot counts) and scope (per world and route). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like getRoutes or getPlayerData by focusing on counts, and the name aligns with the description.
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, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. While the name implies a read-only query for current counts, there is no explicit context about use cases or comparison with other tools. The usage is implied but not articulated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only lists the resource and scope, without detailing side effects, read-only nature, or output format. While 'Get' implies a read operation, it does not explicitly confirm safety or describe what is returned beyond the leaderboard list.
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 that immediately states the tool's purpose. It includes the necessary scope (all and difficulty levels) without unnecessary words or repetition.
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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description adequately conveys the tool's functionality. It may not detail the return format or data structure, but for a simple getter with no input, this is a minor gap. The description is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke it 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 accepts zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-level detail, but none is needed, and the schema coverage is effectively complete (100% of zero 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 ('Get') and resource ('player arcade leaderboards') with clear scope ('all', 'Easy, Medium, Hard'). It effectively distinguishes itself from the sibling 'getArcadeLeaderboard' by emphasizing the comprehensive nature of the operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit usage guidance is provided. The description does not state when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'getArcadeLeaderboard', nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. The context is merely implied by the word 'all'.
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 any behavioral details beyond the basic read operation, such as authentication requirements, pagination, or scope of data returned.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single, focused sentence that delivers the purpose without superfluous detail.
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 zero-parameter getter with no output schema, the description sufficiently communicates the tool's function, though it could benefit from noting whether it requires login or targets the current player.
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?
Tool has zero parameters, so the description is not required to explain parameter behavior; baseline of 4 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?
Description uses specific verb 'Get' and identifies the resource as 'player achievement progress and completed achievements', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools that deal with missions, challenges, etc.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives; no exclusions or prerequisites provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Get' implies a read-only operation and thus some behavioral disclosure, but it does not explicitly state side-effect freedom, authentication needs, or any other details. It is minimally transparent 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 concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.
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 tool has no parameters and no output schema, so the description is the only source for return-value information. It hints at content ('coins, gems packages') but does not specify the structure or fields. For a simple getter, this is adequate but incomplete.
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 schema fully covers the input side. With 0 params, the baseline is 4, and the description adds no parameter-specific meaning, which is acceptable given there are none to explain.
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 ('Get') and resource ('shop bundle information'), with a parenthetical specifying 'coins, gems packages' that narrows the scope. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools, none of which target shop bundles.
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 context. It only states what the tool does without indicating scenarios 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, and the description only states the operation verb. It does not disclose return format, permissions, potential side effects, or any other behavioral context beyond the implied read-only nature of 'Get'.
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 superfluous words. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter getter, the description is adequate: it names the resource precisely. However, with no output schema or annotations, it leaves unclear what 'host information' encompasses and what the response looks like, though this may be acceptable given the simple nature of the tool and sibling context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero properties, so there are no parameters to describe. The baseline of 4 for a no-parameter tool applies; the description adds nothing about parameters because none exist.
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 ('Get') and a distinct resource ('connect app host information for the player'), clearly distinguishing it from the many sibling getter tools that target other resources like events or routes.
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 (whenever connect app host info is needed) but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or which alternative to prefer. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It uses 'Get' to imply a read-only operation, but it does not disclose other behavioral traits such as whether results are sorted, paginated, or limited in any way, nor does it mention any prerequisite conditions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no redundant words or filler. It communicates the essential purpose in a clear and direct manner.
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 tool is simple with two well-documented parameters and no output schema. The description tells the agent what it does but does not explain the return format, error behavior, or any limits. This is minimum viable for a straightforward getter, but it leaves some gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already fully describes both parameters (start and end date as Unix timestamps), so baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra meaning by stating 'within a date range', but it doesn't clarify inclusivity or formatting beyond what the schema provides.
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 a specific verb ('Get'), resource ('calendar tasks'), and scope ('within a date range'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by targeting calendar tasks, which no other tool handles.
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 clearly implies when to use it: when you need calendar tasks within a specified date range. It does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it over other getter 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?
The description carries the full burden for behavioral transparency because no annotations are provided. It only states what data is returned ('friends and online friends') without clarifying behavioral aspects such as whether 'online friends' is a subset or separate list, whether authentication is required, or what the output structure looks like. The lack of any further context leaves the agent guessing about edge cases and return semantics.
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 one concise, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to the core purpose, making it maximally concise while still being understandable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description is adequate but not entirely complete. It states what data is returned but leaves ambiguity about the structure of the 'friends and online friends' (e.g., whether they are separate list fields or a combined list with an online flag). The given context signals the tool is simple, but the description could still add one clarifying sentence about the response format.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and the schema correctly reflects that with 100% coverage. The description does not need to add parameter-level detail because there are no parameters. The baseline of 4 applies here, and nothing prevents it from being credited.
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 phrase 'Get list of friends and online friends' is a specific verb+resource combination that clearly communicates the tool's purpose. It distinguishes itself from all sibling get* tools by targeting the user's own friends list, which is unique among the listed siblings.
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 that this tool should be used when a user needs their friends or online friends list, but it provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of alternative tools. Since the name and description make the use case obvious, this is a case of implied usage rather than outright absence, but there is no deliberate 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 bears the full burden of disclosing behavior. It states the output values (PROD/DEV) and the basis (app version), but does not disclose how the platform and buildVersion parameters influence the result, nor does it describe any edge cases or failure behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence that conveys the essential purpose without unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple getter with straightforward parameters and no output schema, the description is mostly sufficient, clearly stating the return values and the input basis. However, it could be more complete by mentioning that platform and buildVersion are also inputs to the environment determination, and by clarifying the 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?
All three parameters have descriptions and defaults in the schema, giving a high coverage baseline. The description adds that the determination is based on the app version and that the return values are PROD/DEV, but does not explain the exact role of each parameter or how they are combined.
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 ('Get') and identifies a clear resource ('environment type (PROD/DEV)') with a scoping condition ('based on app version'). It is distinct from sibling getter tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description expresses a clear purpose, implying the tool should be used when an environment type needs to be determined from version information, but offers no explicit guidance on when not to use it or which alternatives might be better suited. No exclusions or alternative references are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The verb 'Get' implies a read-only operation, and 'all available routes' clarifies the scope, but with no annotations the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose return format, rate limits, permissions, or whether any filtering exists, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the action ('Get') and resource ('junction/route information') immediately, making it highly 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?
For a zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description adequately conveys its purpose and scope. It lacks explicit details about the return payload structure, but the simple read-only nature and 'all available routes' scope make it sufficiently complete for selection and invocation.
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 description adds no parameter-specific meaning. Per the baseline for zero-param tools, a score of 4 is appropriate since no schema coverage is needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('junction/route information'), and scopes it to 'all available routes'. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'getRoutes' by focusing on junction/route info rather than routes themselves.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'getRoutes' or 'getVOD'. There are no exclusions, prerequisite mentions, or contextual triggers, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool name and sibling list.
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 transparency burden. It discloses the read-like behavior and return format, but does not mention potential side effects, authentication requirements, or data size limitations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, concise and front-loaded with the main action. Every word adds value without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter tool, the description is nearly complete. It states what it does and what it returns. However, it lacks details on output schema structure or edge cases, but this is not a critical gap given the tool's simplicity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the schema fully covers all inputs. Per guidelines, the baseline score is 4, and the description adds no parameter-specific details because none exist.
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: download and extract all custom workouts from a specific S3 bucket, and specifies the return type as parsed JSON objects. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like uploadCustomWorkout.
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 use case (fetching all custom workouts) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives or exclusions. There is no mention of alternative tools like getCustomWorkoutUpload.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not disclose return format, pagination, authentication requirements, or any error behavior. It only states the data is organized by world, which 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, concise sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any filler. Every word adds value.
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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the core purpose. However, it lacks details about the response structure (e.g., how routes are grouped by world), which would be helpful but is not critical given the simplicity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter information, but none is needed since there is no input schema to elaborate on.
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 'Get' and clearly identifies the resource ('routes') with a scope ('free ride mode') and organization ('by world'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like getWorldRoutePlayerCount or getChallenges.
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 clearly implies when to use it: whenever the agent needs all available routes for free ride mode. No explicit alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, but for a zero-parameter read tool, this context is sufficient and clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool's role in obtaining access tokens and its prerequisite status, but it doesn't mention token expiration, security considerations, or potential errors. This adds some behavioral context beyond the schema but leaves room for more detail.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, focused sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose and its prerequisite status. Every word is useful, and no unnecessary information is included.
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 description covers its main purpose and usage. Although there is no output schema to explain the response structure, the fact that it returns access tokens is clearly stated. It could mention that the tokens should be used in subsequent calls, but that is implicit from 'Required before using other endpoints'.
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 with descriptions for all three parameters, including the optional deviceId. The description doesn't repeat parameter details, which is appropriate since the schema already handles this. Baseline score of 3 applies because no additional parameter semantics are needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the tool as the authentication endpoint using the verb 'Authenticate' and specifies the resource 'MyWhoosh'. It explicitly states it returns access tokens, which distinguishes it from all sibling tools that perform CRUD or query operations.
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 explicit guidance that login is 'Required before using other endpoints', which tells the agent when to invoke it. It doesn't mention alternatives, but no alternatives exist among siblings, so this is still clear usage context.
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. It does explain key behavior such as how TaskEndEpochTime should be set (start + duration) and includes a concrete example. However, it omits side effects (e.g., whether the task is added to a persistent calendar), permission requirements, or reversibility. The absence of this information for a mutation tool leaves some ambiguity.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with clear sections (TASK TYPES, SCHEDULING WORKOUTS, EXAMPLE) and front-loads the purpose in the first sentence. The included example is somewhat long but earns its place by illustrating the parameter relationships. It could be slightly more concise, but every part contributes useful information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 13 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description does a good job of covering the most important aspects: task types, scheduling logic, and a realistic example. It references uploadCustomWorkout as a prerequisite for custom workout IDs, which aids context. It does not explain all parameters, but the schema already does that, so the description is sufficiently complete for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema by explaining which taskTypeId to use for events vs. workouts, how TaskEndEpochTime relates to start + duration, and the fact that E_Simple_Workout covers both custom and standard workouts. The example ties several parameters together in a realistic scenario, which is valuable.
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 opens with a clear, specific verb+resource: 'Create a calendar task to schedule events, workouts, or free rides.' It then enumerates the three task types, making it obvious what the tool does. The mention of scheduling workouts and events distinguishes it from sibling tools like uploadCustomWorkout (which uploads but does not schedule) and deleteTask (which removes).
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 for when to use the tool: to schedule events, workouts, or free rides. It gives specific guidance for workouts (using E_Simple_Workout, setting TaskTypeId to the workout ID) and references uploadCustomWorkout as a source for workout IDs. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternatives for other scheduling scenarios, so it falls short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description clearly states that authentication is not required, which is a valuable behavioral disclosure given that no annotations are provided. The verb 'Get' also implies a read-only operation, so the safety profile is reasonably clear, though the return format is not described.
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 the key information front-loaded. The extra note about authentication is relevant and valuable, with no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's minimal complexity (zero parameters, no output schema), the description adequately conveys that it returns maintenance status and notifications. It could be more detailed about the output shape, but for a simple status getter this is largely complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
This tool has no parameters, so there is no need for parameter documentation. The schema coverage is effectively complete, and the description appropriately says nothing about 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 and resource: 'Get maintenance status and notifications.' This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinguishes it from the many other get* siblings in the list.
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 tool is for checking maintenance status, but it does not explicitly state when to use it or mention alternatives/exclusions. There are no sibling tools with overlapping functionality, so the implied usage is acceptable though not fully explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. 'Get' implies a read-only operation, and 'ghost ride data' hints at the content, but the description does not state whether it is read-only explicitly, nor does it mention any caveats like authentication or data format. 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 concise sentence with no filler. Every word adds value, and the key information (action, resource, purpose) is front-loaded.
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?
This is a simple getter with no parameters and no output schema. The description states what it returns ('ghost ride data') and its purpose. While it does not detail the return structure, the tool is simple enough that this is adequate. No obvious gaps 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.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the schema provides complete coverage. The description doesn't need to explain parameters. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and there is no gap to compensate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action: 'Get player ghost ride data'. The resource (player ghost ride data) and purpose (replaying past rides) are explicit. This distinguishes it from all sibling tools, none of which mention ghost ride data.
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 replaying past rides' provides clear context for when this tool is appropriate. While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, no sibling tool offers similar functionality, so the implied usage is sufficient.
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 of behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates the operation is a read-only 'Get' returning a Unix timestamp, providing the key context that this tool has no side effects. It does not mention subsecond precision or HTTP specifics, but these are not necessary for such a simple tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, highly concise and front-loaded. It contains no filler and every word adds value, directly stating the tool's function and return type.
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, no output schema, and no annotations, the description completely covers the necessary information: it specifies the operation (get), the resource (server time), and the format (Unix timestamp). No additional context is required for an agent to invoke this tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so this dimension is not applicable. The baseline of 4 is appropriate because the description does not need to explain parameter usage when there are none, and the schema already reflects an empty parameter set.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: retrieving the current server time as a Unix timestamp. This is a specific verb-resource combination that leaves no ambiguity, and it distinguishes itself from the many sibling getter tools by focusing solely on server time.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage — if you need server time, use this tool — but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. However, given that no sibling tool serves the same purpose, the implied usage is sufficient for a tool of this simplicity.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It thoroughly explains the tool's behavior, including update semantics (same ID, include all properties, modify only desired fields), the meaning of FTP multipliers, time in seconds, step types and their behaviors, interval grouping, and even provides a full example. This is comprehensive and transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is long but exceptionally well-structured with clear headings (CREATING NEW WORKOUTS, UPDATING EXISTING WORKOUTS, WORKOUT STRUCTURE, STEP TYPES, INTERVALS, EXAMPLE WORKOUT). Every section adds value and directly supports the user in constructing valid requests. It is front-loaded with a clear purpose statement and remains focused throughout.
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 complexity of the tool (a nested array of workout objects with many fields) and the absence of an output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers all essential behavioral aspects: creation, update, step types, intervals, and provides a concrete example. The schema's detailed field descriptions complement the description, resulting in a fully self-contained tool definition.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Although the schema has 100% description coverage, the description adds substantial meaning beyond individual field descriptions. It explains relationships between fields, such as total Time being the sum of step times, the use of StartPower/EndPower for ramp steps, IntervalId grouping, and the create/update ID conventions. The detailed example ties everything together, providing practical guidance that the schema alone does not offer.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Upload or update custom cycling workouts to MyWhoosh.' It specifies the verb, resource, and destination, and distinguishes between creating and updating. This is specific and unique among the sibling tools, such as deleteCustomWorkout and downloadCustomWorkoutsFromS3.
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 for when to use the tool, including explicit guidance for creating new workouts versus updating existing ones. It explains the ID requirements and the need to include all properties when updating. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, which would merit a 5.
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:

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

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

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

Latest Blog Posts

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

MCP directory API

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

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/mywhoosh-community/mywhoosh-mcp-server'

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