yougile-mcp

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v1.0.5
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool is clearly named with a resource and action, such as list_projects vs. create_project. Even similar resources like string stickers and sprint stickers are distinguished by the resource name in every tool.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent 'yougile_verb_noun' pattern using snake_case. Verbs are consistently list/get/create/update/delete/set/invite, and nouns switch between plural for list operations and singular for others without exception.
Tool Count2/5
With 57 tools, this is a very large surface area. While the number reflects the breadth of the YouGile API, it exceeds the 25+ threshold that typically makes a server unwieldy for agents, and many tools are highly granular (e.g., separate tools for sticker states).
Completeness5/5
The tool set provides full CRUD coverage across all major resources: projects, boards, columns, tasks, users, departments, roles, stickers, chats, and webhooks. Soft-delete via update operations is consistently supported, and no obvious workflow dead ends are visible.
Average 3.8/5 across 57 of 57 tools scored. Lowest: 2.8/5.
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 MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

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

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

How is the quality score calculated?

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

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

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

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

Tool Scores

Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, and the description adds specificity by mentioning 'soft-delete', which aligns with the destructive hint. However, it does not disclose other behavioral aspects like permissions or side effects of title updates, and the 'stickers' reference is a potential source of confusion beyond what the schema supports.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence, which is efficient and front-loaded with the action verb. However, the inclusion of 'stickers' is an unnecessary and inaccurate element that detracts from the sentence's value, making it less effective than a purely accurate short description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple update tool with three params and no output schema, the description is not sufficiently complete. It omits return value expectations, permissions, and any side effects other than soft-delete. The 'stickers' inconsistency is a significant gap that could lead to incorrect usage, and the tool relies heavily on schemas and annotations for context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for id, title, and deleted. The description repeats 'title' and 'soft-delete' but introduces 'stickers', which has no corresponding parameter in the schema. This can mislead the agent into expecting a stickers field, actively harming parameter understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool updates a board and lists specific update types (title, stickers, soft-delete). This distinguishes it from board creation, retrieval, and other update tools. However, the mention of 'stickers' is not reflected in the input schema, introducing ambiguity about the tool's actual capabilities.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as yougile_create_board or yougile_update_column. It lacks any context about prerequisites, preferred scenarios, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are minimal (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), and the description adds no behavioral context. It does not disclose whether the 'users' list replaces the entire list, whether permissions are required, or what happens on update. No contradiction with annotations, but very little transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence that is appropriately concise. It avoids redundancy and is front-loaded with the primary action and resource.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that this is a mutation tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain return behavior, the effect of omitting optional fields, or how users are updated (replace vs. merge), leaving significant gaps for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema; it only mentions 'name, users' which are already described in the input schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear verb ('Update') and resource ('project role'), and specifies the fields involved ('name, users'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'yougile_update_project' or other role-related tools, so it misses some distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'yougile_create_project_role' or 'yougile_delete_project_role'. The one-line description implies usage but provides no explicit context 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?
Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, but the description adds no additional behavioral context, such as whether the update is partial or full, if it affects existing stickers, or any side effects. It simply restates the action without explaining consequences.
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 verb. No extraneous words, and it directly conveys the tool's core purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that this is a mutation tool with destructiveHint, no output schema, and five parameters, the description is too sparse. It does not explain what the update returns, how optional fields (name, color, deleted) are applied, or any contextual caveats, leaving significant gaps for the agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema covers all five parameters with descriptions, including the 12-char hex format for stateId. The description redundantly restates this but provides no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already offers.
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 updates a state of a sprint sticker. While it could explicitly differentiate from creating states, the verb 'update' and resource 'sprint sticker state' make the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives like create_sprint_sticker_state or update_string_sticker_state. The only hint is that state IDs are 12-char hex strings, which is a parameter detail, not a usage 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it is a non-destructive write operation. The description adds no significant behavioral context beyond restating the creation action and optional user assignment, which is already in the schema. It does not disclose permissions, return behavior, 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 two short sentences with no redundancy. It front-loads the core purpose and adds the optional feature in a separate sentence. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has no output schema, so the description should ideally mention what the function returns, but it does not. It also lacks any mention of permissions, error conditions, or uniqueness constraints. Given it is a create operation with a nested object parameter, the description is underspecified for an agent to fully predict 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?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the parameters are well-documented. The description repeats the role options (admin/worker/observer) already in the schema, adding no new semantics. It does not provide further meaning about the title or users parameters beyond what the schema states.
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 creates a new project, which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_project, update_project, and list_projects. The optional user assignment with roles adds further specificity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 simply states what it does, leaving the context of use implied. There is no mention of when not to use it or how it differs from update_project or create_board.
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?
Annotations already indicate a mutating, non-destructive operation (readOnlyHint false, destructiveHint false). The description adds no extra behavioral context such as permissions, side effects, or failure conditions. The 'Use name field' note is parameter-focused rather than behavior-focused.
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, front-loaded with the primary action. It contains zero redundant content and is highly 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?
For a simple 2-parameter create tool with annotations and schema, the description is minimally sufficient. However, it lacks context about what a sprint sticker is, its relationship to projects, or what the response contains. This leaves some gaps for a full understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds value by clarifying to use 'name' rather than 'title', which preempts a common mistake given other tools may use 'title'. This goes beyond the schema's minimal 'Sticker name' 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 'Create a sprint sticker' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like yougile_create_string_sticker by specifying the 'sprint' variant. However, it does not elaborate on what a sprint sticker is or how it differs from related concepts.
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 compared to alternatives. The only usage-related note is 'Use name field (not title)', which is parameter-level instruction rather than context for tool selection. No mention of alternative tools or scenarios is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. However, the description adds no additional behavioral context—it does not specify what 'details' includes (e.g., members, messages, metadata) or error behavior. This falls below the baseline expected for a description that should add value beyond 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 sentence of eight words with no redundancy. It earns its place by clearly stating the action and object, making it appropriately sized for a simple getter.
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, the description's vague 'details' leaves the agent unaware of what fields will be returned. Given the simplicity of the tool, the description should at least hint at the return structure (e.g., group chat metadata) to provide complete context. This gap makes it insufficiently informative.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema covers 100% of the single parameter 'id' with the description 'Group chat UUID', so the schema already documents the parameter. The tool description adds no additional meaning, matching the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Get') and clearly identifies the targeted resource ('specific group chat'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like yougile_list_group_chats. The purpose is unambiguous and immediately understandable.
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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of how to obtain the required id, nor any conditional context such as 'use this when you have a group chat UUID.'
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?
Annotations already indicate a non-read-only, non-destructive operation. The description adds no extra context such as permissions, side effects, or behavior on partial updates. It provides minimal value beyond the annotation flags.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence. The inclusion of 'etc.' is slightly vague, but overall it is concise and front-loaded with the core purpose.
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 update tool with two optional parameters, the description is adequate but does not clarify that parameters are optional or what happens when none are provided. No output schema exists, so return value is not described. Slightly under-specified.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with parameter descriptions already present. The description merely echoes 'name, subdomain' without adding constraints, examples, or relationships. 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 action (update) and the resource (company settings), with concrete examples (name, subdomain). It differentiates from sibling tools like yougile_get_company and other update_* tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It does not mention that yougile_get_company is for reading, nor does it specify when an update is appropriate. The usage context is entirely implied.
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?
Annotations already indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), and the description's 'Create' is consistent with that. However, the description adds no additional behavioral context such as return format, side effects, or permissions, and merely restates what annotations imply.
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 action. No wasted words or redundant details, 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 create operation with two parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it omits any mention of return values or potential constraints (e.g., company prerequisites), which could be relevant for an agent invoking the 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 fully describes both parameters (title and users) with clear descriptions, so the description adds no new semantic meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the burden and covers 100% 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 clearly states that the tool creates a new department. It uses a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('department'), and the sibling list shows create/department tools for other entities, distinguishing this from update_department/get_department.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or when to prefer the update tool, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool 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?
The annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and not destructive. The description adds no further behavioral context—such as whether states must be unique, whether the sticker must exist, or what the API returns. Since the annotations carry the baseline safety profile, the lack of additional disclosure is a gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no filler or redundancy. It communicates the core action and object clearly, earning the highest score for conciseness.
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 create operation, the description is minimally adequate: it states the action and the schema covers the parameters. However, with no output schema and no mention of return values, uniqueness rules, or behavioral side effects, the description leaves some contextual gaps that a more complete description would address.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides full descriptions for all three parameters (name, color, stickerId), with 100% coverage. The description itself does not add any parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already conveys, 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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Create a state (option) for a string sticker.' The parenthetical clarifies that a 'state' is an 'option,' making the intention unambiguous. While it distinguishes itself from the sibling create_string_sticker (which creates the sticker itself), it does not explicitly reference alternative 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 purpose implies the usage context: you would use this tool when you need to add a new state/option to an existing string sticker. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over the related update_string_sticker_state or create_string_sticker, nor any exclusions 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?
The annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows it is a mutating operation with external side effects. The description adds no further behavioral details such as whether the URL is validated, if a test event is sent, or any rate limits. No contradiction with 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 concise, front-loaded sentence with no filler 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?
The description and schema cover the core action and parameters, but with no output schema, it lacks information about return values (e.g., created webhook object). It also does not clarify which event types are supported. Given the tool's simplicity, this is adequate but leaves clear gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so all parameters have descriptions in the schema itself. The tool description does not add extra meaning to parameters; it only restates the general purpose. The event parameter's description 'Event type to listen for' remains vague without an enumeration or examples, but the schema already provides that baseline.
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 'Create a webhook to receive events at a URL' clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb (create), resource (webhook), and function (receive events at a URL). It distinguishes this from sibling tools like yougile_list_webhooks and yougile_update_webhook.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that yougile_update_webhook should be used for modifying existing webhooks, nor does it describe preconditions or context where creation 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds no behavioral context beyond what the schema and annotations provide; 'by ID' simply restates the required parameter. No details about return format, error behavior, or scope are 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 clear sentence with no redundant words or filler. It is appropriately sized for a simple get operation.
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 get-by-ID tool with good annotations, the description is adequate but lacks information about what 'details' are returned, especially since there is no output schema. It is not incomplete enough to cause mis-invocation but is minimal.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% (id is described as 'Column UUID'), so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any extra meaning for the parameter beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('column') with the selection criterion 'by ID', making its purpose clear. It distinguishes from sibling list tools such as yougile_list_columns which would retrieve multiple columns.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention, for example, instead of listing columns or using yougile_get_board. The usage is only implied from the tool name and ID parameter.
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds nothing beyond the obvious read operation. It does not mention any additional behavioral traits like permissions, pagination, or return format, so it provides minimal value beyond the annotations.
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 fluff. It is concise, though it could be slightly enhanced with a usage note or scope constraint, but it is appropriately sized for a simple getter 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?
For a simple get-by-ID tool with full parameter schema and read-only annotations, the description is adequate but slightly incomplete. It does not mention the absence of output schema or specify response behavior, and it lacks contextual guidance about when to prefer this over listing roles. Overall, it covers the minimum but leaves room for clarity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% with both roleId and projectId described as UUIDs. The description itself adds no parameter details beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline for schema-covered params.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'a specific role in a project', which accurately distinguishes this tool from siblings like yougile_list_project_roles (list all) and yougile_create_project_role/update/delete. It precisely indicates a single-entity retrieval operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as yougile_list_project_roles. The usage is implied from the words 'specific role', suggesting one should already have the roleId and projectId, but no explicit guidance or exclusions 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 annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds a useful note that states are embedded in each sticker object, giving insight into the return shape, but does not disclose pagination, filtering effects, or other behavioral details. 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, information-dense sentence with no fluff. It front-loads the action and provides a clarifying definition, making it concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list operation with no required parameters and full schema documentation, the description is sufficient. It explains what the objects are and notes the embedded states, which mitigates the lack of an output schema. Some mention of pagination or filtering would 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?
All three parameters are documented in the schema with descriptions, so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not add any extra semantic meaning beyond the schema's descriptions, which is acceptable given the high 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 identifies the action ('List') and resource ('sprint stickers'), with a helpful parenthetical definition of what sprint stickers are. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling listing tool for string stickers, so it doesn't fully earn a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus other listing tools, such as yougile_list_string_stickers. The description only states what the tool does, not the context, 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, confirming this is a non-destructive write. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond restating the projectId parameter's purpose ('inside a project'). It does not disclose permissions, idempotency, or error behavior, so the added value over annotations is low.
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 8-word sentence with a clear action verb and no unnecessary words. It is perfectly concise and front-loaded, with every word earning 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 2-parameter create tool with complete schema and annotations, the description is adequate for basic invocation. However, the absence of an output schema means the return value is not described, and there is no mention of behavior on invalid input (e.g., non-existent projectId), leaving some practical gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%: both 'title' and 'projectId' have descriptive text ('Board title', 'Parent project UUID'). The description adds no new parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Create' and identifies the resource 'board' with the context 'inside a project', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_project or create_column. The scope is precise and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'inside a project' implies a prerequisite that a parent project must exist, providing some usage context. However, the description does not explicitly mention alternatives (e.g., list_boards, update_board) or state when not to use this tool, leaving usage guidance largely implied.
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?
Annotations already indicate this is a mutation (readOnlyHint=false) and not destructive. The description adds no extra behavioral context such as return value, placement of the column, side effects, or permissions. The color range is redundant with the schema.
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 extremely short (two sentences). However, the second sentence 'Color is 1-16' repeats information already in the schema, so it doesn't fully earn its place. Still, it is concise and front-loaded with the primary action.
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 create operation with three well-documented parameters, the description is mostly complete. It lacks details about the response or column positioning, but these are not critical given the tool's simplicity and schema richness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with each parameter already having descriptions (title, boardId, color). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, 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 'Create a new column inside a board' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like yougile_update_column and yougile_list_columns by specifying create functionality.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The usage is implied as 'use this to create a column in a board', but there are no explicit alternatives or exclusions (e.g., when NOT to use this tool vs update_column). It provides minimal guidance beyond the core action.
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?
Annotations already set readOnlyHint=false, indicating a write operation. The description adds that this is a create action for a sprint sticker state, which is consistent but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as required permissions, effect on existing states, or return behavior. Thus, it provides minimal added context beyond 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, concise sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without extraneous information. It is highly efficient and front-loaded, earning a perfect score for conciseness and structure.
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 create operation with full schema coverage and annotations, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks context about what the 'state' represents, what a successful creation returns (no output schema exists), and any special behavior. More detail would improve completeness, but the tool's simplicity keeps it at a neutral score.
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 all three parameters, so the schema already explains each parameter. The description itself does not add parameter-level detail, but since the schema is complete, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action 'Create' and the resource 'a state (option) for a sprint sticker', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like yougile_create_string_sticker_state. It specifies both the operation and the object, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage 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 prerequisites, nor does it contrast with sibling tools such as yougile_update_sprint_sticker_state. The reader must infer usage purely from the tool name and description.
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. However, the description adds no additional behavioral context such as return format, pagination, or error conditions. It doesn't disclose anything beyond the annotations, so it falls short.
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 unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with 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 read operation with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides the essential purpose but lacks details on the return structure and any edge cases. This is adequate for the tool's complexity but 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 input schema has a single required parameter (taskId) with full description coverage (100%). The description does not add any extra meaning to the parameter beyond the schema, so 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 uses a specific verb 'Get' and clearly identifies the resource (list of users subscribed to a task's chat notifications). It is distinct from sibling tools like set_chat_subscribers, making its purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context about what it does but does not explicitly mention when to use it versus alternatives such as yougile_set_chat_subscribers. Usage is implied from the name and action, but no exclusions or alternative guidance is given.
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?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the behavior of filtering by projectId, which is useful context, but does not disclose additional behaviors like pagination behavior or response structure. With annotations covering safety, 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 two sentences with zero redundancy. Every word contributes meaning: 'List boards' states the action, and the second sentence explains the most useful filter. This is appropriately 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?
For a simple read-only list tool, the description is minimal but adequate. However, there is no output schema, so the description does not communicate what the response contains (e.g., array of board objects, fields returned). Pagination via limit/offset is implicitly present in the schema but not mentioned in the description, leaving some gaps for the agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so all four parameters are already documented with descriptions. The description only reinforces the projectId filter, which is already in the schema. It adds no extra semantics beyond what the schema provides, matching the baseline for high coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('boards'), and adds a filter hint ('by projectId'). It distinguishes from siblings like get_board by indicating it lists multiple boards, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other list tools (e.g., list_projects).
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 (to see boards for a specific project) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like get_board for a single board. The usage context is clear but lacks exclusions or explicit comparison to sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which covers the safety profile. The description adds a useful behavioral detail that 'States are embedded in each sticker object,' which is not obvious from the schema. However, it does not disclose other behaviors like pagination behavior (though implied by limit/offset params) or any rate limits, so it adds only modest value beyond 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 extremely concise—just two sentences. The first sentence states the core function, and the second adds a clarifying detail about the output. There is no unnecessary verbiage, and the information 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?
For a simple list operation with full schema coverage, strong read-only annotations, and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It explains what the tool returns (states embedded), and the schema handles parameters. It could mention that parameters are all optional filters/pagination, but the schema already conveys that. Minor gap: no explicit statement that it returns a list of stickers, but that is implied by the verb 'List.'
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 provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters (limit, offset, projectId). The description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema, so it hits the baseline of 3 as per the rubric.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('List') and the resource ('string stickers'), and clarifies that these are custom labels/tags for tasks. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_string_sticker (single retrieval) and create/update variants. The addition of 'States are embedded in each sticker object' further defines the resource.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or when to prefer this over list_sprint_stickers or other list tools. The context of sibling names implies usage but the description itself offers no explicit direction.
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?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description does not contradict them. However, the description adds no additional behavioral context beyond 'create', such as side effects, permissions, or return value, so the transparency is adequate but not enhanced.
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 efficiently communicates the essential purpose without 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?
For a simple 3-parameter create operation, the schema and annotations provide adequate invocation context. However, the description does not describe the return value (no output schema), nor does it clarify behavior when optional 'users' is omitted or whether role names must be unique per project. It is functional but not fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema covers all three parameters with descriptions ('Role name', 'User UUIDs to assign this role', 'Project UUID'), so description-level parameter explanation is not needed. The description itself adds no extra parameter semantics, matching the baseline for 100% schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Create') and the resource ('a new role in a project'), which matches the tool name and distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_project_role or create_project. It is specific and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The imperative 'Create' implies this is the tool to use when adding a new project role, but there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or how it compares to alternatives like update_project_role or delete_project_role. 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?
Annotations already indicate a non-read-only, non-destructive operation, so the description isn't burdened with the safety profile. It adds value by listing supported features (e.g., deadline, checklists, color) but omits details about return values or side effects beyond creation.
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 sentence with a front-loaded purpose and then a compact list of supported features. It is concise and readable, though the list is dense.
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 rich input schema covers all parameters, and the description adequately conveys the tool's core purpose and capabilities. However, without an output schema, the description does not mention what the response contains (e.g., created task ID), which is a minor gap but not critical for a create 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 provides 100% parameter descriptions, so the baseline applies. The description's mention of 'deadline (timestamp ms)' and color enum adds no new information beyond what the schema already documents.
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: 'Create a new task in a column.' The verb 'create' and resource 'task' are specific, and it distinguishes the tool from siblings like yougile_update_task and yougile_list_tasks.
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 via the verb 'create' but does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives or mention prerequisites. There is no guidance on when not to use it, leaving the agent to infer from the name and 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the return format (names, IDs, user roles), which is useful context beyond annotations, but it does not disclose pagination behavior, filtering nuances, or any other operational details. This is acceptable but not rich.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core purpose and return value with no filler or repetition. Every word contributes to understanding.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list tool with excellent annotations and fully documented parameters, the description is complete. It explains what is listed and what is returned, and the schema handles parameter details. No output schema exists, so the return description is especially valuable.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with each parameter (limit, title, offset) having an explicit description. The tool description adds no extra semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides, 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 ('List all projects'), the resource ('in the YouGile company'), and the return content ('project names, IDs, and user roles'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like yougile_get_project (single project) and yougile_list_boards, making the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It does not mention when to prefer this over yougile_get_project, or mention any prerequisites or exclusions. The 'List all projects' wording implies a broad listing, but there is no explicit comparison or selection 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?
The description mentions soft-delete and moving between boards, which aligns with the destructiveHint annotation (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true). However, it does not disclose the consequences of these actions (e.g., whether tasks are moved with the column, or if soft-delete hides the column from normal queries). No contradiction with annotations is present.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the primary action and lists the update options concisely. There is no redundant or superfluous text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 5 parameters, no output schema, and a destructive hint, the description provides basic functional coverage but omits important contextual details such as the response format, the effects of soft-delete or board moves on associated tasks, or whether any parameters are required (only 'id' is required per schema). This is adequate but leaves notable gaps for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides full descriptions for all 5 parameters (100% coverage). The description essentially repeats the same capabilities listed in the schema (title, color, board, soft-delete) without adding new semantic meaning or context. Thus, 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 action ('Update') and the resource ('a column'), and enumerates specific updatable attributes (title, color, move to another board, soft-delete). This makes it unambiguous and distinguishes it from sibling update tools for other resources like projects or boards.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for modifying an existing column, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternates (e.g., yougile_create_column or yougile_delete_column) nor provide exclusion criteria. Usage context is clear but not formally differentiated from alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation is disclosed. The description adds a minor constraint (State IDs are 12-char hex strings) but does not elaborate on effects like soft-delete behavior or reversibility. No contradiction with annotations.
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?
Two short, front-loaded sentences convey the core purpose and a key identifier format. The second sentence is slightly redundant with the schema but serves as a useful reminder. No filler or unnecessary 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 mutation tool with full parameter schemas and destructive annotations, the description is adequate. It could mention that name, color, and deleted are updatable fields or describe response behavior, but the absence of output schema and the simplicity of the operation make this sufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description's note about 12-char hex state IDs simply repeats what is already in the schema for `stateId`, adding no additional parameter semantics beyond the structured definitions.
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 ('Update') and the specific resource ('a state of a string sticker'), distinguishing it from sibling tool `yougile_update_string_sticker` which targets the sticker itself. The additional detail about State IDs being 12-char hex strings clarifies the target identifier.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for updating a string sticker's state but gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like `yougile_update_string_sticker` or `yougile_update_sprint_sticker_state`. There is no mention of exclusions or specific scenarios.
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?
Annotations already indicate this is a mutation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the 'name' field tip, not disclosing side effects or return behavior. Since annotations cover safety profile, the description does not need to replicate that, but it also doesn't enrich it.
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: the first states the action and resource, the second delivers a critical parameter tip. Every word earns its place, and the essential information 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?
For a simple create operation with only two parameters, the description combined with the schema and annotations is largely complete. It explains the action, the key parameter constraint, and the required fields. It omits return behavior, but given the simplicity and lack of output schema, this is a minor gap.
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 already provides descriptions for both parameters (name and projectId) with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds valuable semantics by explicitly instructing to use 'name' not 'title', preventing a likely naming mistake that the schema does not address.
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 'Create a string sticker' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_task or create_board. The additional note about the 'name' field reinforces the purpose without ambiguity.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The only hint is 'Use name field (not title)', which addresses parameter naming but does not explain when to choose this over create_sprint_sticker or other creation tools. The usage context is entirely implied.
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?
Annotations already mark this as destructive (destructiveHint=true), and the description adds the key behavioral trait that this is a hard delete, meaning permanent removal rather than a reversible soft-delete. This goes beyond the structured annotations by clarifying the irreversibility, which is valuable context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that fully conveys the purpose and key nuance (hard delete). There is no redundant information or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple delete operation with two well-documented UUID parameters and clear destructive annotations, the description adequately covers the core behavior. The explicit mention of hard-delete addresses the main side-effect concern, though it stops short of describing cascading effects or return values, which are less critical here.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% with both parameters documented as 'Role UUID' and 'Project UUID'. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so it performs at the baseline for fully covered schemas.
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 states a specific action 'Delete a project role' with the resource clear. It distinguishes itself from potential soft-delete variants by explicitly noting '(hard delete, not soft-delete)', so there is no ambiguity about 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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, conditions, or suggest when a hard delete is appropriate, leaving the agent to infer usage only from the tool name and generic action.
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?
Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description aligns with them. It adds the company scope but does not disclose irreversible consequences, cascading effects, or permission requirements beyond what the annotation implies.
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?
One concise sentence that is front-loaded with the core action and resource. No 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 one-parameter tool with destructive annotation, the description is sufficiently complete. It covers what the tool does without needing to explain return values (no output schema). Minor gap: it does not specify the effect on user's associated data or confirm if removal is permanent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with the single 'id' parameter described as 'User UUID'. The description adds no additional parameter information, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Remove a user from the company' clearly states the specific action (remove) and resource (user) with the scope (company), distinguishing it from sibling user tools like get_user, update_user, and invite_user.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage (when a user needs to be removed) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives, no prerequisites, or exclusions. It does not mention that this is a destructive action versus an update.
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is safe. The description adds no extra behavioral context such as return format, authentication needs, or rate limits, but for a simple get-by-ID operation this is acceptable.
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 words, front-loading the essential action and resource. It earns its place without any filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a single-parameter get operation with high schema coverage and read-only annotations, the description is sufficient. It does not explain return fields, but the tool is simple and the output is likely obvious from the resource name.
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 provides 100% coverage for the single parameter 'id' with its description 'Department UUID'. The description does not add further parameter semantics, but the schema already documents the parameter fully, 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 tool gets details of a specific department, using a specific verb (get) and resource (department). The word 'specific' distinguishes it from the sibling tool yougile_list_departments, which retrieves multiple departments.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when you need details for one department rather than a list, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions or alternative recommendations 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds no extra behavioral context beyond the schema (e.g., error handling, response format), but it is consistent with annotations and does not contradict them.
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 exactly what the tool does 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?
For a simple read operation with full schema coverage and safe-read annotations, the description is largely sufficient. The only missing element is a mention of the return value or not-found behavior, which would be helpful since there is no output schema, but this does not significantly hinder usability.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with both chatId ('Chat UUID') and messageId ('Message ID (timestamp long integer)') clearly documented. The description repeats 'from a chat' but adds no additional parameter meaning 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 'Get a specific message by ID from a chat' uses a specific verb (Get) and resource (message) with clear scoping (by ID, from chat). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like yougile_list_messages by emphasizing 'specific' message retrieval rather than listing.
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 when-to-use vs alternatives is provided. The usage is implied by 'by ID from a chat', but there is no mention of when one should use list_messages instead or how to obtain the messageId. This is functioning but lacks directive 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds no additional behavioral context such as return format, error behavior, or auth requirements, but it does not contradict annotations. With annotations carrying the safety burden, this is adequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple get-by-ID tool and front-loads the core action and target.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity, the strong annotations, and the fully documented schema, the description is sufficient. It does not explain return details, but no output schema exists and the purpose is obvious for a get tool. Slightly more could be added about expected output, but it is not necessary.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% for the single 'id' parameter, which is documented as 'Project UUID'. The description's 'by ID' adds no meaning beyond what the schema already provides, 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 'Get details of a specific project by ID' uses a specific verb ('get') and clearly identifies the resource ('project') with a distinguishing qualifier ('specific project by ID'). This differentiates it from sibling tools like yougile_list_projects (which lists all projects) and mutation tools like yougile_create_project/yougile_update_project.
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 phrase 'by ID' implies the tool is intended when the agent already knows the project's UUID, but it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over list_projects or provide any exclusions/alternatives. Usage is implied rather than clearly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, fully covering the safety profile. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond the operation itself; it does not mention response format, errors, or permissions, but given the strong annotation coverage, a baseline score is appropriate.
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 action and target. No unnecessary words or 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 simple one-parameter read-only tool with annotations, the description is mostly complete. However, it lacks any hint about return values or error behavior, and no output schema exists to fill that gap, leaving minor uncertainty.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the 'id' parameter described as 'User UUID'. The description only mentions 'by ID' without adding further meaning, 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 'Get details of a specific user by ID' clearly identifies the action (get), resource (user), and scope (specific user by ID). It distinguishes this from sibling tools like yougile_list_users, which lists all users, and yougile_get_project, which targets a different resource.
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 context is implied: use when needing a single user by ID, but there is no comparison with yougile_list_users or mention of prerequisites like needing to look up the ID first.
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds the boardId filtering context, which is useful, but it does not describe pagination behavior or return format. This matches the bar set by the calibration example.
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, front-loaded with the core purpose ('List columns.') and then a single filter hint. Every word earns its place with no 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 simple filtered-list tool with good annotations and full schema coverage, the description is adequate. It conveys the essential purpose and a key filtering capability. It could mention pagination defaults or return format, but the schema supplies defaults, so this is not a major gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of boardId filtering essentially restates the schema's 'Filter by board UUID' without adding new meaning. Other parameters (limit, title, offset) are not elaborated beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('columns'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like yougile_get_column (singular) and yougile_create_column. The added boardId filter hint further clarifies 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 description gives a hint about filtering by boardId, which implies a use case (listing columns for a specific board), but it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like yougile_get_column for a single column. There is no when-not 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description's 'List' aligns with this. The description adds the scope 'all departments' but does not disclose additional behavior such as pagination details or return format, which are not covered by 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 sentence with no filler or redundant information. It is front-loaded and concise, effectively communicating the tool's purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list tool with good annotations and 100% schema coverage, the description is nearly complete. It could mention that results are paginated or that the limit/offset parameters control pagination, but the schema covers this, so the description is sufficient.
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 both parameters (limit, offset) with clear descriptions. The tool description does not add any additional parameter semantics, so a 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 ('List') and resource ('departments') with an explicit scope ('all departments in the company'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like yougile_get_department (single department) and yougile_create_department (creation).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for listing all departments, but it does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives or mention any exclusions or prerequisites. It provides clear context but lacks explicit guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description doesn't need to restate safety. It adds no new behavioral context such as pagination, ordering, or response shape, which would be useful but not strictly necessary for a simple list operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant or filler content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple nature of the tool (one required parameter, read-only, no output schema), the description adequately covers the core invocation intent. It tells the agent exactly what is returned (roles) and the scope (for a project). It omits potential edge-case details like pagination or default roles, but these are not critical for a basic list tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%: the only parameter projectId is described as 'Project UUID'. The description itself does not add any additional semantic information about the parameter, so it stays at the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'List' and a clear resource 'roles' scoped by 'for a project'. This clearly identifies the operation and distinguishes it from siblings like yougile_get_project_role (single role) and yougile_list_projects (list projects).
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 context is implied: you need a projectId and want to list its roles. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives like yougile_get_project_role, nor any exclusion scenarios. It is a basic, unambiguous usage but lacks direct comparative guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate a write operation with destructive intent (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true). The description adds valuable context by mentioning 'soft-delete', clarifying that deletion is non-permanent. This is beyond the annotation and helps the agent understand the tool's 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 one succinct sentence, front-loading the action and resource. The parenthetical enumerates the modifiable aspects without fluff, earning 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 CRUD update with no output schema, the description covers the core action and modifiable fields. However, it omits what happens upon success/failure (e.g., return value) and whether the update is partial or full, leaving some ambiguity for the agent. It is adequate but not rich.
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 full descriptions for all four parameters (100% coverage). The description's parenthetical lists the same fields without adding new syntax or behavioral detail, matching the baseline for schema-heavy documentation.
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 updates a department, listing the specific fields (title, users, soft-delete) that can be changed. The verb 'Update' is precise, and the resource 'department' distinguishes it from sibling update tools for other entities.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies use for modifying the title, user list, or soft-deleting a department, but does not explicitly discuss when not to use it or compare with alternatives like create_department. It provides basic context but no exclusion criteria.
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?
Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true, and the description adds the crucial context that this is a 'soft-delete', implying the message is not hard-removed. It also discloses that editing message text is not supported by the API, which is useful behavioral context beyond what annotations provide. No contradiction with 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 concise, with two sentences. The main action is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence provides a relevant, non-redundant API limitation note. Every word adds value, and there is no unnecessary fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity of the tool (two parameters, no output schema), the description covers the core operation and a notable limitation. The soft-delete behavior and the unsupported editing note provide sufficient context for an agent to understand the tool's scope, though it could optionally mention the response format or recovery of deleted messages.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides full descriptions for both parameters (chatId and messageId) with 100% coverage. The description does not add extra information about the parameters or how they should be formatted, so it does not exceed the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the action: 'Soft-delete a message.' It specifies the resource (message) and the operation (soft-delete), distinguishing it from other message-related tools like sending or getting. The additional note about editing not being supported further clarifies its purpose and differentiates it from potential update operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage by stating the action, but it does not explicitly provide when-to-use guidance or mention alternatives. The note about editing not being supported is a limitation, not a usage guideline. There is no mention of when to prefer this over other tools or any exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no further behavioral context beyond the ID-based lookup, which is already evident. No contradictions with 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, 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.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read-only tool with one well-documented parameter and no output schema, the description adequately communicates the core purpose. It could optionally mention the return format or that it returns the full board object, but it is not necessary for basic usage. The annotations cover the read-only nature.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 100% description coverage for the single parameter 'id' as 'Board UUID'. The description simply refers to 'by ID' without adding extra meaning or constraints beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline but not more.
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 details') and the resource ('a specific board'), with the scope ('by ID') that distinguishes it from listing or creating boards. It 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 Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies use when you have a board ID and need that board's details, which is clear from the wording. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like yougile_list_boards for retrieving all boards, so it falls short of a perfect score.
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds a meaningful behavioral detail ('States are embedded in the response') that goes beyond the structured annotations, clarifying response structure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short, front-loaded sentences with no redundancies. The first sentence states the core function, and the second provides a relevant response detail. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple get-by-id tool with one parameter and strong annotations, the description is adequately complete. It could possibly define 'sprint sticker' more explicitly, but the combination of name, description, and annotations is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already fully documents the only parameter (id as Sticker UUID) with 100% coverage. The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, 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 ('Get') and the resource ('a sprint sticker by ID'), which is specific and distinguishes it from list operations or other sticker types. The extra sentence about embedded states adds useful 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 description implies usage when you have a sprint sticker ID and need a single object, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives like list_sprint_stickers or get_string_sticker. No when-not or alternative references are given.
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, indicating a write operation with external side effects. The description only adds 'by email,' which is largely redundant with openWorldHint and doesn't disclose additional behavioral traits like invitation acceptance or pending status.
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, making it maximally concise 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's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema) and the rich annotations, the description sufficiently covers the core action. It could mention the return value or confirmation behavior, but such details are not critical for a straightforward invite operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for both 'email' and 'isAdmin'. The description itself adds no parameter-specific guidance, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Invite' and clearly identifies the target resource ('a user') and scope ('to the company'), making its purpose unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like update_user or delete_user.
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 the action is for inviting a user to the company. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or provide alternatives, so it falls short of a perfect score.
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?
Annotations already signal read-only and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds company-wide scope but does not disclose that pagination exists (default limit 50, offset) or that 'all' may require pagination. This is a notable behavioral trait beyond annotations, but the schema provides limit/offset hints, so the gap is not severe.
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. No filler or redundant wording.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list tool with no required parameters and robust annotations, the description is mostly complete. It could benefit from mentioning pagination or filtering (e.g., 'supports pagination and title filter') and return type, but the schema covers parameter details and the scope is clear. Lacks output schema, but the description's omission of return format is a minor gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with all three parameters (limit, offset, title) already explained. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('group chats') and clarifies the scope ('in the company'). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like yougile_get_group_chat (which fetches a single chat) and yougile_create_group_chat/update_group_chat (which mutate).
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 that this tool lists all group chats, implying it is for browsing/querying multiple chats as opposed to retrieving one via get_group_chat. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, so it falls short of the highest bar.
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 description confirms the read-only behavior by referencing the read-only endpoint, which complements the readOnlyHint annotation. It adds value by explaining the endpoint's advantage (more filters), but does not disclose other behavioral details such as pagination limits or response structure. No contradiction with 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 concise at two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and uses no filler words. Every sentence contributes useful information about filters and the endpoint choice.
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 moderate complexity (6 optional params), full schema coverage, and annotations for safety, the description covers the essential usage. It lacks explicit return format details, but for a list tool this is a minor gap. The endpoint context and filter guidance make it sufficiently complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already covers all 6 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description highlights a few filter parameters (columnId, assignedTo, stickerId, title) but adds no new semantic detail 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 the tool's function: 'List tasks with filters.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_task by emphasizing the list and filter capability.
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 on when to use the tool through specific filter guidance and notes that the /task-list endpoint supports more filters than /tasks. However, it does not explicitly state exclusions or compare with sibling tools like get_task for single-task retrieval.
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 description mentions soft-delete and the '-' convention for removing users, but both are already fully specified in the input schema. Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so no additional behavioral context (e.g., permissions, reversibility) is provided beyond what structured fields already convey.
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, tightly scoped sentence that conveys the core purpose and a key usage nuance. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or repetition of obvious details.
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 update tool with four well-documented parameters and a destructive annotation, the description is largely sufficient. However, it does not clarify whether the 'users' map fully replaces existing assignments or merges with them, which is a meaningful ambiguity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, with each parameter (id, title, users, deleted) described. The description adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already states; the '-' tip is redundant with the schema's users property description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Update') with a resource ('project') and enumerates the exact updateable aspects (title, users, soft-delete). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools targeting other resources.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The context is clear: use to update a project's title, user assignments, or deletion status. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when not to use it, but the resource-specific nature makes the intent unambiguous.
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 adds behavioral context by clarifying that the update can be a soft-delete (a specific type of destructive operation) and warns about using the correct field name. This goes beyond the annotations' generic destructiveHint.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource. The additional note is brief and directly useful.
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 3-parameter tool with annotations and full schema descriptions, the description is mostly complete. It lacks guidance on when to use this tool vs state updates, but covers the essential purpose and a key usage detail.
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?
Schema covers all 3 parameters with descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description's note about using 'name' rather than 'title' provides extra semantic guidance for the name parameter, and clarifies the 'deleted' parameter's purpose.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Update a string sticker' and specifies the two update actions (name or soft-delete), distinguishing it from sibling tools like update_string_sticker_state. The verb and resource are explicit.
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 vs alternatives like update_string_sticker_state or when to use create instead of update. The note about 'name' vs 'title' is a parameter hint, not usage context.
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 specifies that deletion is a soft-delete, which adds context beyond the destructiveHint annotation by clarifying the nature of the destructive action. It does not cover permissions or rate limits, but the annotation covers the destructive aspect.
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 front-loads the purpose and lists key fields with no unnecessary words. It is easily scannable and efficient.
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 straightforward update tool with 5 documented parameters and a destructive hint annotation, the description is largely sufficient. However, it does not mention the return value or behavior when the id does not exist, which could be useful context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description merely lists the updatable fields (url, event, disabled, soft-delete) without adding additional meaning or constraints beyond what the schema already 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 the action 'Update' with the resource 'webhook' and enumerates the mutable fields (url, event, disabled, soft-delete). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_webhook and list_webhooks.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage by naming the operation, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_webhook or list_webhooks. No exclusions or prerequisites 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description's 'Get' aligns with this and adds the 'current' scoping detail, but discloses no further behavioral traits beyond what annotations and verb indicate.
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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It communicates purpose efficiently.
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 no-parameter, read-only operation with annotations covering safety, the description is fully complete. No output schema is present, but the return value ('company information') is adequately described for this simple tool.
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 100%. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and the baseline for no parameters is 4. No additional parameter details required.
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 action ('Get') and resource ('current company information'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like yougile_update_company by focusing on read-only retrieval.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies use when needing current company info, but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternative references. Since no sibling getter for company exists, the lack of alternatives is less critical, but explicit context is absent.
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?
Annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive. The description adds a concrete example but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as return value, permissions, or side effects beyond creation.
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: a clear action statement followed by a compact example. It is front-loaded and contains no filler, making it easy for an agent 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?
The schema is rich and covers all parameters, and the example fills in practical usage. The only gap is that the 'Requires' list omits title, which is also a required field, but the schema makes this visible and the omission is not likely to mislead.
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?
While the schema describes every parameter (100% coverage), the description enriches understanding by showing an example of how users, userRoleMap, and roleConfigMap interrelate. This example helps clarify the nested structure beyond the schema's property definitions.
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 begins with a specific verb and resource: 'Create a group chat.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like yougile_update_group_chat and yougile_get_group_chat. The subsequent mention of required maps adds scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It states that the tool requires users map, userRoleMap, and roleConfigMap, giving the agent a clear prerequisite for use. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the create verb and sibling names make the intended scenario obvious.
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?
Annotations already indicate a read-only, non-destructive operation, so the description's job is to add context. It adds useful behavioral details like the chatId being the taskId for task chats and that group chats are also supported. This goes beyond pure safety characterization.
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: a clear, front-loaded statement of purpose followed by one crucial clarifying caveat. No wasted words, perfect size.
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 list operation with fully documented parameters, the description covers the key usage context (task vs group chats). No output schema exists, but the return values are self-evident for a message listing tool, so the description is sufficiently complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, with each parameter having a descriptive comment. The description adds no new parameter details—the chatId mapping mentioned is already present in the schema's chatId description. Thus, it provides no added value beyond the schema, warranting the baseline score.
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 and resource: 'Get messages from a chat.' It also distinguishes itself from siblings like get_message (singular) and list_group_chats (list chats) by clarifying it handles both task chats and group chats, and by specifying the chatId mapping.
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 it: for retrieving messages from a specific chat, including task chats (chatId = taskId) and group chats. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context makes the appropriate usage obvious.
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only nature is known. The description adds meaningful context by noting users are 'employees' and that filtering by email or projectId is possible. No contradictions with annotations. It doesn't describe pagination or return format, but that is partially covered by schema parameters.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences with a front-loaded verb and resource. Every word earns its place: 'List all users (employees) in the company. Can filter by email or projectId.' No redundancy or unnecessary details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is a simple list operation with optional filters. The description covers the core functionality and scope (all users, company-wide). Pagination (limit/offset) is in the schema, and no output schema exists, but the description is adequate for an agent to understand when and how to 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description merely restates the email and projectId filters without adding new meaning beyond the schema's own descriptions. It doesn't compensate for any missing param details, 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'List all users (employees) in the company.' The verb 'list' specifies the action, and 'users' identifies the resource. It also distinguishes from sibling tools like get_user (single user) and user management tools by emphasizing enumeration of all users.
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 use: it lists all users with optional filters by email or projectId. While it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, the sibling tool names (e.g., get_user, invite_user) make the distinction apparent from the description's 'all users' scope.
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation risk is known. The description adds the chatId-to-taskId mapping and group chat support, which is useful context beyond the annotations. However, it does not disclose response format, permission requirements, or potential errors, limiting its transparency to a moderate level.
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 crisp sentences, starting with the primary action and immediately following with the essential chatId nuance. No superfluous information. It is perfectly sized for the tool's simplicity.
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 2-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the core usage: the action, the chatId semantics, and the supported chat types. It does not mention return values or edge cases, but given the tool's simplicity and annotation coverage, it is nearly complete. A minor gap is the lack of any mention of success/failure behavior, so a 4 is appropriate.
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 provides 100% coverage with descriptions for both text and chatId. The description adds value by clarifying that chatId can refer to group chats as well, which is not explicitly stated in the schema property description. This extra meaning elevates it above the baseline of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action: 'Send a message to a chat.' It also specifies the resource (chat) and provides key scope details: task chats and group chats. This distinguishes it from sibling chat-related tools like delete_message or list_messages, making its purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives clear context about when to use the tool: for task chats (chatId = taskId) and group chats. It does not explicitly name alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance, but the contextual scope is sufficient for most cases, earning a 4 rather than 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?
Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true. The description adds that the deletion is a soft-delete, which is a meaningful behavioral detail beyond the annotation. It also clarifies that users can be replaced, implying a mutation.
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 sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, and lists the key update options without waste.
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 an update tool with fully described parameters and annotations, the description covers the essential context. It doesn't explain return values, but no output schema is present; a brief note about returned data would be helpful but not critical.
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 parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), so the description adds little beyond listing what can be updated. The schema already explains id, title, users, deleted.
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 updates a group chat and specifies the updateable aspects (title, users, soft-delete). This distinguishes it from other group chat tools (create/get/list) and other update tools for different resources.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the use case: modifying an existing group chat's title, membership, or performing a soft-delete. No explicit alternatives or exclusions are given, but context is clear given the sibling tools.
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, providing a clear safety profile. The description adds valuable context by noting that states are embedded in the response, which goes beyond what annotations convey. No contradictions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two short sentences with no wasted words. The action is front-loaded, and the additional sentence about states earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it identifies the resource, the access method, and a key response detail. No further information is needed for this complexity level.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema fully describes the single parameter 'id' with 'Sticker UUID' (100% coverage). The description does not add additional parameter semantics, 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.
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 specific resource ('string sticker by ID'), distinguishing it from siblings like list, create, or update operations. It also adds the important detail that states are embedded in the response, setting clear expectations.
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?
Usage is clearly implied: use this when you have a sticker ID and need its details. While it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, the narrow scope of a get-by-ID tool makes the context obvious.
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?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds context by enumerating the fields returned (title, description, assigned users, deadline, checklists, stickers, time tracking), which goes beyond the annotation. No behavior is hidden that would surprise the agent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that begins with the verb 'Get' and immediately identifies the resource and key fields. It contains no filler or redundant information, earning a perfect score for efficiency.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (one parameter, no output schema, annotations covering side effects), the description sufficiently explains what the tool does and what the response will contain. The field list provides enough detail for an agent to decide whether to invoke this 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 fully documents the sole parameter 'id' as a required Task UUID with 100% description coverage. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, such as format constraints or examples, 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.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool retrieves full details of a task with specific fields listed (title, description, assigned users, deadline, checklists, stickers, time tracking), making the purpose of retrieving a single task clear. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like yougile_list_tasks, which lists tasks, and yougile_create_task/update_task, which modify tasks.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when full task details are needed and a task ID is known. While it doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives or name sibling tools, the context is clear: use this tool to fetch a specific task rather than listing all tasks. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated, but the tool's purpose is self-evident.
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 annotations mark this as non-read-only and non-destructive, and the description adds the specific behavioral restriction that only the admin status can be changed. This gives the agent clear expectations about what the tool can and cannot do.
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, front-loaded with the main purpose and immediately clarifying the constraint. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple two-parameter tool with good annotations and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, scope, and parameters. Nothing critical is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already provides full descriptions for both parameters (id as 'User UUID', isAdmin as 'Grant or revoke admin rights'), and the description adds little beyond restating the admin status limitation. The description does reinforce the relationship between the two parameters, but schema coverage is already complete.
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 updates a user and explicitly limits its scope to changing admin status. This distinguishes it from other update tools like yougile_update_column and from user retrieval/invitation/deletion tools.
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 'Only supports changing admin status' clearly indicates when this tool should be used, though it does not explicitly name alternatives. Since it's the only user update tool in the sibling set, the use case is unambiguous.
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 annotation readOnlyHint=false already indicates this is a mutation. The description adds the key behavioral detail that the operation replaces the entire list rather than appending, which is essential context beyond what the annotation provides.
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 exactly two sentences, both informative and free of filler. It front-loads the primary action and then adds the critical replacement 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 two-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the core behavior and the replacement semantics. It does not cover every possible edge case, but it is sufficient for an agent to understand what the tool does and 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?
Schema coverage is 100%, so parameters are already well-described. The description adds the meaning that userIds is the full replacement set, not an incremental update, which enriches the schema's 'Array of user UUIDs to subscribe' definition.
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 'Set' and clearly identifies the resource: the list of users subscribed to a task's chat notifications. It also notes the replacement behavior, which distinguishes it from the sibling tool yougile_get_chat_subscribers.
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 conveys when to use this tool by implying it is the setter counterpart to the getter (yougile_get_chat_subscribers). It clearly states that it replaces the existing list, which is a critical usage nuance, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it.
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?
Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, and the description adds that the delete is a soft-delete, which is a behavioral trait not in the schema. It also cautions about the 'name' vs 'title' field, providing useful context beyond 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?
One sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the action and resource, then immediately covers the key usage caveat.
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?
With three simple parameters, no output schema, and destructiveHint annotated, the description gives enough context for an agent to correctly invoke the tool. It would benefit from mentioning that only name/deleted are updateable (not state), but that is implied by the resource name.
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?
Schema coverage is 100%, so each parameter is described, but the description adds the key nuance that 'name' (not 'title') is the correct field, and that 'deleted' performs a soft-delete. This enriches the parameter meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool updates a sprint sticker, specifically the name or soft-delete. The verb 'Update' and resource 'sprint sticker' are precise, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like update_string_sticker or update_sprint_sticker_state.
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 on what fields to use ('name' not 'title') and the scope (name or soft-delete), implying when to use this vs. other sticker operations. It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools but the guidance is sufficient for a simple update tool.
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?
Annotations already set destructiveHint=true, but the description adds meaningful behavioral details: how to remove deadline/timer by passing {deleted:true} and how to soft-delete via 'deleted=true'. This goes beyond the structured fields, though it doesn't discuss reversibility or side effects in depth.
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 three sentences, front-loading the primary purpose and then compactly listing supported changes and special deletion patterns. Every sentence contributes useful information 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?
Given the large parameter count and rich schema, the description provides a concise overview and highlights the non-obvious deletion semantics. It doesn't cover return values or error conditions, but those are not essential for an update operation and are partially covered by schema annotations. Overall, it is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for all 12 parameters, but the description adds semantic value beyond the schema by explaining the 'deleted' pattern for clearing fields and explicitly noting 'columnId' means move. This clarifies the intended usage of ambiguous schema options.
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 begins with a clear verb+resource pair: 'Update a task' and immediately enumerates the mutable fields including the special semantics of 'columnId (move)'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_task or update_column.
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 the tool is for modifying existing tasks, listing the editable aspects. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives, but the context is unambiguous given the tool name and field list. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.
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 annotation already declares readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds a valuable note about the return format (raw array, no paging wrapper). Given there is no output schema, this behavioral detail is important and goes beyond the 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, well-structured sentence that states the purpose first and then adds a concise, useful note. There is zero wasted text.
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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description plus annotations fully cover what an agent needs: a read-only list operation with a clear response format. The sibling tools are not confusing given the specific resource.
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. The description doesn't need to add any parameter information, and the baseline for zero-parameter tools is 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 clearly states the verb "List" and the resource "webhooks", specifying "all" for scope. It unambiguously distinguishes from sibling tools like create_webhook and update_webhook by focusing on read-only retrieval.
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 makes it clear this is for retrieving all webhooks, which is the obvious use case. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but as the only list-webhooks tool among siblings, the context is sufficient.
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:

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

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

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

Latest Blog Posts

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

MCP directory API

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

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/nebelov/yougile-mcp'

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