lighterpack-mcp

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools target distinct resource-action pairs with clear descriptions. Minor overlap exists between update_item (which can set imageUrl) and set_item_image_url, but the latter is dedicated to that purpose. Batch tools are clearly named and serve a different use case.
Naming Consistency4/5
Tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with underscores, using imperative verbs throughout. Slight deviations like 'list_lists' instead of 'get_lists' and 'generate_share_link' instead of 'create_share_link' are minor and do not undermine the overall predictable style.
Tool Count2/5
With 35 tools, the server is over-scoped for its domain. Many micro-tools (set_item_worn, set_item_consumable, set_item_star) could be consolidated into a single update operation, and batch tools add further redundancy. The count exceeds the reasonable range for a packing-list manager.
Completeness5/5
The tool surface covers the complete lifecycle of lists, categories, and items, including creation, retrieval, update, deletion, duplication, sharing, image handling, quantity adjustments, flag toggles, and batch operations. Library settings and account info are also addressed, leaving no obvious dead ends.
Average 3.4/5 across 35 of 35 tools scored. Lowest: 1/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 4 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under 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

Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Tool has no description.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness1/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Tool has no description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Tool has no description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Tool has no description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Tool has no description.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Tool has no description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Tool has no description.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness1/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Tool has no description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Tool has no description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Tool has no description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Tool has no description.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Tool has no description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Tool has no description.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness1/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Tool has no description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Tool has no description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Tool has no description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Tool has no description.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Tool has no description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Tool has no description.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness1/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Tool has no description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Tool has no description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Tool has no description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Tool has no description.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Tool has no description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Tool has no description.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness1/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Tool has no description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Tool has no description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Tool has no description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Tool has no description.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Tool has no description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Tool has no description.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness1/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Tool has no description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Tool has no description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Tool has no description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Tool has no description.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Tool has no description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses a key side-effect (setting worn=true clears consumable), but omits other relevant behaviors such as idempotency, the effect of setting worn=false, or any permission requirements.
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 that provides a specific behavioral fact, but it omits the primary purpose and parameter context, making it under-specified as a standalone description. It is not bloated, but it does not fully earn 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?
For a simple setter with no annotations and no output schema, the description should at minimum state what the tool does and explain how parameters relate. It only mentions the mutual exclusivity side-effect, leaving the core function to be inferred from the title and tool name.
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 description coverage is 0%, requiring the description to compensate. It adds meaning only for the 'worn' parameter by explaining its effect, but categoryId and itemId are left completely unexplained, leaving their roles ambiguous beyond their names.
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 implies the tool sets the worn flag ('setting worn=true') and uniquely distinguishes from sibling tools like set_item_consumable by explaining the mutual exclusivity. However, the primary action is not stated explicitly, relying on the title 'Mark an item as worn/not worn' to complete the purpose.
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, and no exclusions or alternative tool mentions are included. The only context is a constraint about the worn/consumable interaction, which does not help an agent decide between this and similar setters.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavioral traits. It only states the basic action and lacks disclosure about return values, side effects, or how the optional parameters affect behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It effectively communicates the core action without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is the sole source of context. It is too minimal to be complete, lacking information about parameters, return behavior, and edge cases for a create operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention the name or description parameters at all. It fails to compensate for the schema's lack of parameter descriptions, leaving the agent without any additional semantic context.
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 (creates), the resource (packing list), and adds an important qualifier ('empty') that distinguishes it from create_list_with_items. The verb is specific and the resource is well-defined.
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. Sibling tools like create_list_with_items and rename_list exist, but the description does not mention when to prefer this tool or what the 'empty' qualifier implies for usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It adds a valuable nuance: the star is a 3-level rating, not a plain on/off flag, which goes beyond the schema's enum. However, it omits other behavioral details such as auth requirements, idempotency, or side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to explaining the tool's purpose and the star scale, making it concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with three required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It lacks explanations for the ID parameters, return behavior, and prerequisites, leaving an agent with insufficient context to use it reliably.
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 description coverage is 0%, and the description only explains the 'star' parameter's values (0=unstarred, 1=favorite, up to 3). It does not explain the roles of categoryId and itemId, nor how they identify the item placement, leaving a significant gap for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.
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 action ('Sets the star level') and resource ('this item placement'), and explicitly defines the value scale (0-3). This distinguishes it from sibling item update tools like set_item_quantity or set_item_worn.
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 prerequisites, exclusions, or why one would choose set_item_star over other item update tools. The only implied use is setting a star, but there is no explicit usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose a key behavior: linking an existing item makes it shared, and 'editing it later updates every category it appears in.' However, it does not explain other important behaviors like how fields are treated when existingItemId is provided (e.g., ignored or applied), or what response to expect. There is useful context but significant gaps remain.
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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the primary action and uses a parenthetical to explain the alternative. It is concise and does not waste words, though the dense length might benefit from splitting into clearer conditions.
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 13 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description leaves too much unspecified. It covers the main dual-mode behavior but omits details about parameter interplay, required fields for new items, edge cases, and return values. The tool is complex enough that a richer description is needed for reliable use.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only explains the role of existingItemId, leaving the other 12 parameters without semantic explanation. The schema provides names and types but no descriptions, and the tool description does not clarify how parameters like qty, price, or weight are used in the two modes. This is under-compensated for a 13-parameter tool.
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: 'Adds a new item to a category' and also explains a second mode for linking an existing item via existingItemId. This is a specific verb+resource pair and distinguishes this tool from siblings like add_items_batch by covering the single-item vs. shared-item use case.
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 some usage context by explaining the two modes ('Adds a new item' vs. 'if existingItemId is given — links an already-existing item'), but it does not explicitly compare to alternatives (e.g., add_items_batch, update_item) or state when to choose this tool over them. Usage is implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only hints at the 'single save round-trip' behavior (efficiency/atomicity) but does not disclose validation rules, side effects, return values, error cases, or prerequisites. For a creation tool, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded with the core action and key scope, and every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite the tool's complexity (nested categories, items with many optional fields), no annotations or output schema exist. The description does not cover return behavior, error conditions, or how the nested data is validated, leaving the agent under-informed for correct invocation.
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 description coverage is 0%. The description mentions 'categories and their items' but does not explain the required 'name' parameter or the nested structure of categories (e.g., color, items). It adds little beyond the schema's self-explanatory property names.
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 ('Scaffolds') and clearly identifies the resource ('a complete new list') and scope ('categories and their items'), distinguishing it from siblings like create_list or add_category. The title also reinforces the one-shot nature.
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 'complete new list' and 'in a single save round-trip' provides clear context that this tool is for bulk creation of a new list with nested structure. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it (e.g., for adding to an existing list).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the key behavior of flooring at 0, which is useful. However, it omits other important behavioral details such as the role of the 'by' parameter, default decrement amount, what happens if 'by' is omitted, and any return values or side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that states the core action and a key constraint. 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.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of annotations and output schema, and with 3 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the one-sentence description is incomplete. It does not clarify parameter semantics, the default behavior of 'by', return values, or edge cases beyond the floor. More context is needed for an agent to invoke it confidently.
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?
The input schema has zero property descriptions, and the description does not compensate. It does not explain that 'by' specifies the decrement amount or what categoryId and itemId refer to. The parameter names are somewhat intuitive, but the description adds no additional 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 uses the specific verb 'Decreases' with the resource 'quantity' and adds a behavioral constraint 'floored at 0 (never negative)', which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like increment_item_quantity and set_item_quantity. It precisely states what the tool does.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage (when you want to decrease an item's quantity) but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives such as set_item_quantity or increment_item_quantity. No exclusions or alternative guidance are provided, so it relies on the verb's obvious meaning.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility. It explicitly states the irreversible nature ('This cannot be undone') and the cascading unlinking effect, which are critical behavioral details. It doesn't mention permissions or error cases, but for a destructive op the irreversibility warning is strong.
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 entire description is two tight sentences. The first states the action, the second delivers the critical irreversible warning. No wasted words, and the most important fact (cannot be undone) 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 one-parameter delete tool with no output schema, this description provides adequate context: the action, the side effect of unlinking, and the irreversible nature. It misses a bit of guidance on parameter semantics and behavior when the item doesn't exist, but overall it is sufficiently complete for a straightforward destructive operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has zero description coverage, and the description does not mention the 'itemId' parameter at all. The agent must infer that itemId is the identifier to delete, which is a risky assumption. The description could have at least confirmed that itemId is the target item to remove.
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 starts with a specific verb+resource: 'Deletes an item from the library.' It adds distinct scope by explaining it unlinks from every category/list, which clearly differentiates it from siblings like 'remove_item_from_category' or 'delete_list'.
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 tells what it does but offers no guidance on when to choose it over alternatives like 'update_item' or 'remove_item_from_category.' It implies deletion of the entire item, but there is no explicit context for when this should be used instead of related 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It explicitly discloses a critical behavioral trait: setting consumable=true automatically clears worn on the item placement. This goes beyond a simple setter and is valuable for 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, well-structured sentence. It front-loads the key fact ('mutually exclusive') and states the consequence directly. No filler or redundancy.
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 setter with no output schema, the description covers the central behavior but lacks parameter explanations and usage context. It does not mention prerequisites or other related operations, making it minimally sufficient.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only explains the 'consumable' parameter's role via the mutual exclusivity note; itemId and categoryId are not explained at all, leaving their semantics unclear despite the tool name providing some context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly indicates the tool sets the consumable flag by stating 'setting consumable=true automatically clears worn.' Combined with the title, the purpose is evident. It also distinguishes from siblings like set_item_worn by explaining the mutual exclusivity relationship.
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?
Usage is implied: use this tool to mark an item as consumable or not. The description does not provide explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance, but the side-effect note gives a contextual hint that this tool interacts with worn status.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context by mentioning the 'single save round-trip' and efficiency, but omits important details such as atomicity, failure behavior, permissions, or return values. This is minimal but non-trivial 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?
A single, front-loaded sentence that states the action and the key advantage. No wasted words; every phrase 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 schema is rich with item fields, but the description does not address return behavior, partial failure handling, or validation. Given the tool's batch nature and no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient but leaves important operational gaps for an agent to make fully informed calls.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does not explain any parameter semantics beyond generic 'items' and 'category'. The schema itself provides field names and types, but the description adds no extra meaning about how parameters relate or behave, such as the role of existingItemId or the default qty.
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: adding several items to one category in a single round-trip. It uses a specific verb ('adds') and resource ('items to one category'), and explicitly differentiates from the sibling tool add_item_to_category by highlighting efficiency.
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 for use—when you need to add multiple items at once—and names the alternative (add_item_to_category). However, it does not provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance or exclusions, which keeps it from a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the batching behavior ('single save round-trip') and the partial update capability ('and/or'), but does not mention error handling, atomicity, permissions, or side effects. This is minimal but not fully absent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, tightly written sentence that front-loads the action and scope. It includes no fluff, filler, or redundant repetition of the tool name.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a complex batch mutation tool with a nested schema and no output schema. The description covers what it does and that it batches, but lacks guidance on return values, failure modes, per-item validation, or the categoryId requirement for flag edits. For a tool of this complexity, the description leaves significant operational 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does add meaning by enumerating the supported field and flag names (name/description/price/weight/url/imageUrl and qty/worn/consumable/star), but it does not explain the updates array structure, itemId requirement, or the categoryId prerequisite for flag changes. The schema itself provides some of this, but the description only partially compensates.
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 ('Applies') with a clear resource ('field edits ... and/or flag edits') and scope ('across many items in a single save round-trip'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like update_item, set_item_quantity, and add_items_batch.
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 'across many items in a single save round-trip' establishes the clear context for batch updates versus single-item tools. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the batch scope is unambiguous enough to guide selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral transparency. It discloses key traits: the link is public, read-only, and accessible without an account. However, it omits important details such as whether authentication is required to generate the link, whether the link can be revoked, and the exact response structure beyond the URL format. This is adequate but leaves gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is exceptionally concise, using two sentences that front-load the action and provide essential details without redundancy. Every word contributes value, and the URL format is included inline, making it highly scannable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential outcomes: the generated URL and the access model. It does not explain permalinks, ownership requirements, or how to manage existing links, but these are not critical for initial tool selection and invocation. Overall, it is nearly complete for the tool's simplicity.
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?
The single parameter listId has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. It only mentions 'a list' without explicitly mapping to listId or explaining that it represents the list to be shared. Though the parameter name is somewhat self-explanatory, the description adds minimal value beyond the schema's type 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 clearly states the tool's function: generating a public, read-only share link for a list. It provides the URL format and specifies the access level, distinguishing it from sibling tools like copy_list or get_list. The verb 'mints' 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 usage: when you want to share a list with anyone without requiring an account. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or provide when-not guidance, but no obvious sibling tool offers the same public sharing capability, making the context reasonably clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It states that the tool returns data ('Returns full detail') and includes computed totals, but it does not explicitly confirm this is a read-only operation or mention error/not-found behavior or permission requirements. The read intent is clear, but some transparency gaps remain.
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 immediately states the tool's purpose and then enumerates the return contents. Every word earns its place with no repetition or 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?
With no output schema, the description does a good job of explaining what the response contains: categories, items with weight/price/qty and flags, and computed totals. It omits minor details like item names/IDs or error behavior, but for a simple get-by-detail tool this is largely complete.
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?
The input schema has 0% description coverage for the single parameter listId. The description never explicitly mentions this parameter or explains that listId identifies the target packing list. It only says 'one packing list', which lightly implies this but does not adequately compensate for the lack of schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb and resource: 'Returns full detail for one packing list'. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like list_lists by emphasizing 'full detail' and 'one packing list'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description clearly implies when to use this tool: when you need the full detail of a single packing list. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the scope is evident from 'one packing list' contrasted with the sibling tool list_lists.
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?
Without annotations, the description discloses the key edge case: it fails on the last category unless force=true. It does not, however, state whether removing a category also removes its items or what the return value is, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and contains no filler. Every word adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has a simple interface, but the description omits potential side effects (e.g., items in the category) and return behavior. It covers the main action and a critical failure mode, but not enough to be 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 description gives semantic context for force ('unless force is true') but does not explicitly explain listId or categoryId. Since the schema has no descriptions and coverage is 0%, the description only partially compensates, though the parameter names are fairly self-explanatory.
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 ('Removes') and a resource ('a category from a list'), making the tool's function clear. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like rename_category or add_category by focusing on deletion.
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 implies the tool is for removing categories and provides a condition about the last category, which helps the agent understand when it may fail. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the critical non-obvious trait that the copy references the same item rows as the original (shared items), which is essential for understanding side effects. It also points to fork_item for detaching, adding useful context. It could go further by mentioning other side effects like whether the original is modified or what happens to the new list's name, but it covers the most important 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 concise, with two sentences that front-load the core purpose and then provide a critical caveat. Every sentence earns its place: the first explains what the tool does, the second details the shared-item behavior and suggests a related tool. No wasted words.
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 tool with two simple parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral nuance (shared items) and gives a path to detach items. However, it is incomplete in explaining parameter usage (especially newName) and could benefit from mentioning what happens to the new list's name or whether the original is affected. The core functionality is understandable, but the parameter gap prevents a higher score.
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 description coverage is 0% and the description does not compensate. Neither listId nor newName is explained; newName is never mentioned. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description does not clarify that newName is optional or what it controls, leaving the agent with gaps in understanding the full parameter semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Duplicates a list and its categories') using a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from related tools like fork_item by highlighting that it duplicates the entire list structure while sharing item rows. This makes the tool's 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 for when to use the tool: when you need to duplicate a list and its categories. It also names fork_item as a follow-up alternative for detaching specific items, providing guidance on a related operation. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or contrast it with creating a new list from scratch, 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the character limit and provides examples, but does not mention persistence, side effects, or error behavior. For a simple setter, this is adequate but not rich.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes meaning, and the format is immediately understandable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the core behavior and constraints. However, it does not clarify whether the setting is global or per-list, which could be inferred from the schema but is not stated.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, but the description adds meaningful context beyond the schema: it explains that the symbol is 'shown next to prices' and gives examples. The schema already defines length constraints, so the description complements it well.
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: setting the currency symbol shown next to prices. It uses a specific verb ('Sets') and identifies the resource/scope. There is no sibling with a similar purpose, so it fully distinguishes the tool.
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 ('Sets...') but does not explicitly state when to use it vs alternatives or mention any prerequisites. Since no sibling tool does this, alternatives are not relevant, but context about the scope (e.g., global vs list-specific) is missing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It adds useful detail about accepted formats, size limit, and the input modes. However, it does not disclose whether the upload overwrites an existing photo, what happens after success, or error conditions—leaving some behavioral ambiguity.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, no filler, and front-loaded with the main action. Every sentence adds meaningful information—format, size, input modes, and the set-as-photo outcome.
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 description covers the core requirements for correct invocation: file types, max size, and the two input modes. It does not mention overwrite behavior or return values, which are gaps, but the tool is relatively simple and the given info likely suffices for most calls.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description explains the critical either/or relationship between filePath and imageBase64, defines imageBase64 as 'raw base64-encoded bytes', and ties mimeType to the image type. This goes well beyond the input schema, which merely lists the properties without any description (0% 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 ('Uploads a local image file'), the target resource ('sets it as the item's photo'), and constraints ('JPEG/PNG/WebP, 5MB max'). It distinguishes from sibling set_item_image_url by emphasizing local file upload rather than URL.
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 local image file needs to be set as an item photo, but it does not explicitly compare with alternatives like set_item_image_url. It provides input-mode guidance (filePath vs imageBase64) but no when-to-use vs alternatives guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a read-only operation ('Returns a summary') and the per-list fields, plus account-wide scope. It does not cover edge cases like ordering or empty lists, but this is a simple read-only tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, dense sentence that includes the action, scope, and returned fields without 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 zero-parameter, read-only list tool, the description provides the essential return values and scope. It does not mention pagination or sorting, but these are not critical for this simple tool and no output schema exists to add 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?
The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. No parameter explanation is needed, and the schema coverage is trivially 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 uses a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('every packing list in the account'), and specifies the exact summary fields (name, category count, total weight/price). This clearly distinguishes it from singular tools like get_list.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance is provided, but the description and name imply this is the tool for retrieving all packing lists. It does not mention exclusions or direct users to get_list for individual list details.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the cache will be discarded and the fetch forced, which is essential. However, it does not mention whether unsynced local changes could be lost, what happens on failure, or whether any server-side modifications occur.
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 long, with the purpose stated first and the usage guidance second. Every word contributes value, with no redundant or repetitive 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?
For a simple zero-parameter action with no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does and when to use it. It lacks return-value or error-handling details, but the tool's low complexity makes this 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 tool has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. The description adds no parameter details, but none are needed; a baseline of 4 is appropriate for a parameterless tool.
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 explicitly states the tool forces a re-fetch of the entire library from the LighterPack server and discards the local cache. This gives a specific verb, resource, and effect, making it unambiguous and clearly distinct from sibling 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 description provides an explicit trigger condition: use it when suspecting data changed elsewhere, such as the user editing lighterpack.com directly mid-session. It does not mention when not to use it or alternative tools, but there is no obvious alternative refresh tool among the siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool mutates display order and adds the constraint that categoryIds must be a full permutation. Yet it does not describe error behavior on invalid input, authorization requirements, or side effects. The essential behavior is clear, but deeper context (e.g., failure modes) is missing.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences with no filler. The first states the core action, and the second provides the essential constraint. Every word adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple reorder operation with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the main action and the critical input invariant. It does not cover edge cases like what happens if categoryIds is invalid, but the tool's simplicity and the given constraint make it sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that categoryIds must contain exactly the existing category ids and that the order in the array determines the display order, adding meaning beyond the plain array type in the schema. The listId parameter is only implied by 'list's categories', which is acceptable given the schema defines its type.
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 ('Sets') and resource ('display order of a list's categories'). It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like remove_category or rename_category by focusing on reordering existing categories, not adding, removing, or editing them.
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 this tool is used when reordering categories and provides a critical usage constraint: categoryIds must contain exactly the list's existing ids. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, though no sibling tool serves the same reordering purpose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully explains that omitting the color clears it and lets LighterPack auto-assign one, but it does not mention potential side effects, reversibility, or error behavior for invalid category IDs.
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, compact sentence that front-loads the main action and then provides the necessary detail about the optional parameter. 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 two-parameter setter without an output schema, the description covers the essential behaviors: setting a color, the hex format, and the clearing behavior. It does not discuss edge cases or side effects, but overall it is sufficiently complete for this level of tool complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has no descriptions for its parameters (0% coverage), so the description adds critical meaning by explaining the hex format for 'color' and the key behavior of omitting it to clear. 'categoryId' is left to inference, but its purpose is reasonably clear from the tool name and context.
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: 'Sets a category's swatch color' with a specific verb and resource, and also explains the clearing behavior. This distinguishes it from sibling tools, as none of the other category-related tools specifically handle color.
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 that it is used for setting or clearing a category's color, and explains when to omit the color parameter. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but the purpose is apparent and there is no competing color tool among siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavior: 'Only the keys you pass are changed', which clarifies partial update semantics. It also names the specific columns affected. However, it omits details like whether this is a write-only operation, permission requirements, or any side effects. The word 'toggles' is slightly ambiguous (could imply flipping rather than setting), but the statement about passing keys clarifies 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 sentences, immediately front-loaded with the primary action and object. It lists the specific columns concisely and adds the crucial partial-update note without unnecessary fluff. 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 tool with a simple nested object and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It covers all parameter effects and the main behavioral nuance. However, it does not mention that listId must reference an existing list or how the tool handles invalid inputs, but given the simplicity 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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description compensates by listing all six boolean fields with human-readable labels (item images, prices, worn, consumable, list description, total pack weight). It also explains the semantics of the fields object: only keys passed are changed. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema, though it does not individually detail each field's effect in depth.
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: 'Toggles which optional columns show for a list' followed by a specific list of columns (item images, prices, worn, consumable, list description, total pack weight). This specific verb+resource distinguishes it from siblings like set_list_description or set_item_worn, making the purpose unmistakable.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context: it is for changing optional column visibility on a list. It implies this is the tool for list-level display settings, not for per-item modifications like set_item_worn. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion criteria, so it stops short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: partial update ('Only the fields you pass are changed') and the cross-list propagation side effect ('updates it everywhere it appears'). However, it omits other important behavioral traits like error handling, permission requirements, or how weightUnit is processed. Adequate but with clear gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and every word earns its place. The first sentence states the function, the second provides practical use cases and a caveat. 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 tool with 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, key behavior, and most parameters. Missing details like weightUnit semantics and error cases are partially covered by schema constraints (e.g., additionalProperties false). Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke this tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It maps url to 'link', lists most parameters, and explains the critical patch semantics ('Only the fields you pass are changed'). It omits weightUnit, but the enum in the schema makes it self-explanatory. This adds meaningful value beyond the raw 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 opens with 'Patches any subset of an item's own fields', which is a specific verb+resource+scope. It then lists the exact fields (name, description, price, weight, link/url, image URL), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like set_item_image_url or set_item_quantity. This makes 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 Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives concrete use cases ('This is how you rename an item, change its price, or add a link') and notes that only passed fields change. While it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives, the context implies when this general patch tool is appropriate versus the more specific field setters.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the burden of transparency. It discloses three important behavioral traits: cascade deletion of categories, failure on the last list, and preservation of items referenced elsewhere. This goes well beyond a vague 'delete' and informs the user of 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 sentences long and front-loaded with the primary action. The second sentence adds critical constraints and side effects without any filler. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's behavior.
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 delete tool with no output schema, the description covers the main action, side effects, and a key failure condition. It doesn't mention success return value or reversibility, but those are less important for a delete operation. Overall, it is nearly complete for the tool's complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate for the parameter's meaning. It does not explicitly state that listId is the ID of the list to delete, but the tool name and description make it inferable. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema for the single parameter.
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 ('Deletes'), the resource ('a list'), and the scope ('all its categories'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like remove_category or delete_item. It also adds detail about the cascade behavior, 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 Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context by explaining what gets deleted and the failure condition when it's the only remaining list. While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives, the scope makes it clear when to use this tool versus per-category or per-item deletion.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key behavioral effect: the item is detached into an independent copy, and future edits to the original no longer affect this list's copy. This goes beyond the schema and gives the agent a clear understanding of side effects, though it omits details like reversibility or required permissions, which are not critical for understanding the core behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and delivers the essential information without fluff. Every phrase earns its place, making it 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?
The tool is simple with two integer parameters and no output schema. The description fully explains the operation and its primary consequence. It doesn't mention what happens to other lists (implied they remain shared) or return format, but these are not necessary for such a straightforward operation, especially given the schema provides parameter types.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides meaningful context: 'shared item' maps to itemId, and 'one specific list' maps to listId. This is enough for an agent to infer the parameter roles, though it doesn't explicitly name them in the description, which would have been clearer.
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 ('Detaches') and clearly identifies the resource (shared item) and the outcome (independent copy for one specific list). It distinguishes from siblings like copy_list by emphasizing detaching the link to the original, which is a unique operation.
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: use this when you want a shared item to become an independent copy for a specific list, with the consequence that future edits to the original won't affect this list. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use the tool, though this is implied by the 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states that the tool only unlinks, does not delete the item, and does not affect other category placements, which are the key behavioral traits. It does not mention edge cases like idempotency or error behavior, but for this simple operation the disclosure is strong.
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 long and front-loads the core action. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second adds a crucial distinction and an alternative. Every word earns its place 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 simplicity of the operation and the lack of an output schema or annotations, the description covers the essential context: what it does, what it does not do, and which sibling tool to use for full deletion. It does not mention return values or failure modes, but those are not critical for this straightforward mutation.
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 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. While it does not explicitly map itemId and categoryId, the phrase 'item from a single category' makes the roles of both parameters inferable. The parameter names themselves are clear, but the description adds minimal additional semantic detail 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 uses the specific verb 'Unlinks' to clarify the action, identifies the resource as 'an item' from 'a single category', and distinguishes this tool from both delete_item and remove_category. It explicitly differentiates it from sibling operations by clarifying that the item row and other category placements remain untouched.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit usage guidance by stating that delete_item should be used to remove the item everywhere, establishing a clear alternative. It also clarifies the scope of the operation (only unlinks from the specified category), giving the agent enough context to choose between this and related 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?
Without annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It adds meaningful context ('no upload involved') that prevents a common misunderstanding, and implies that the item's image is simply pointed to a URL. While it does not explicitly mention overwriting or side effects, the core behavioral trait is clearly communicated.
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 exceptionally concise: two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and purpose, and every sentence earns its place. It contains no fluff 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 two-parameter tool with no output schema or nested objects, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, when to use it, and a clear alternative. It is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly, though it could theoretically mention that it replaces the existing image.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds value by clarifying that imageUrl should be an externally-hosted URL, complementing the 'uri' format in the schema. However, it does not add much insight into itemId, which remains straightforward. Overall, it provides some extra meaning but not comprehensive explanation.
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 ('Points') and resource ('an item at an externally-hosted image URL'), and distinguishes it from the sibling tool upload_item_image. It is concise 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 Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly provides usage guidance by stating when to use this tool (for external URLs) and when to use the alternative (upload_item_image for local/binary images). This is a clear and direct usage differentiation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals a key behavioral trait: the tool does not influence MCP-added items, only the lighterpack.com UI default. This is important context that goes beyond the name. It doesn't mention return values or persistence, but for a simple setter, the main behavior is transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose and then adds a concise scope clarification. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure is 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?
For a one-parameter setter with no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It explains the tool's effect and its limitation regarding MCP-added items. There is slight ambiguity about whether the setting is list-wide or global, but this is a minor gap and does not significantly hinder correct usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It clarifies that the 'unit' parameter is the default unit for new items in the UI, adding semantic meaning beyond the raw enum in the schema. The allowed values (oz, lb, g, kg) are self-explanatory, and the description confirms their role.
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 sets the default unit that LighterPack's UI pre-fills for new items. It distinguishes itself from the MCP flow by noting that MCP-added items always take an explicit weight_unit, and the tool only affects lighterpack.com's UI. This makes the purpose specific and separates it from siblings like set_total_unit.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear usage context by explicitly stating that items added through this MCP server always take an explicit weight_unit per call, so this tool only affects the web UI's pre-fill. This tells the agent when to use it and when not to, though it doesn't name alternative tools explicitly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral detail: the setting does not affect the units returned to the agent; responses always use grams. However, it doesn't specify whether the setting is global or per-list, which is a minor gap given the schema only contains 'unit'.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two concise sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, then immediately clarifying the crucial scoping vs. MCP responses. No filler 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 one-parameter setter with no output schema, the description adequately explains the effect and the key distinction from MCP response units. It doesn't mention global scope, but the absence of a list ID in the schema implies it. Overall, it's complete for the tool's simplicity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 0%, but the description compensates by explaining the meaning of the 'unit' parameter: it sets the display unit for list totals. It also lists the valid values (oz/lb/g/kg), which matches the enum and adds context beyond raw 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 sets the unit LighterPack's UI uses to display list totals, enumerates the allowed units (oz/lb/g/kg), and distinguishes it from item-level unit settings. The verb 'sets' plus resource 'display unit for list totals' is specific and differentiates from siblings like set_item_unit.
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 explicitly clarifies that this tool affects only the UI display, not the units reported back by the MCP server. This provides clear guidance on when to use it (to change UI display) and when not to (if expecting different response units). It doesn't name alternatives but the context implies a distinction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns specific information and implies read-only behavior ('Returns...'). It also indicates the need for a signed-in user, implying authentication. This is transparent for a simple getter tool, though it does not explicitly state absence of side effects or error conditions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the primary result ('Returns the signed-in username') and then lists the secondary items (summary counts and settings). 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.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with no annotations, no parameters, and no output schema. The description fully explains what the tool returns: username, list/category/item counts, and library-wide settings. This is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's behavior and expected result without needing further 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?
The tool has zero parameters, and the input schema is empty. According to the guidelines, 0 parameters yields a baseline score of 4. The description does not need to elaborate on parameter semantics since there are none, and it correctly focuses on the returned output.
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 returns signed-in username, library summary counts, and settings. It uses the specific verb 'Returns' and distinguishes itself from sibling tools that operate on individual lists, categories, or items, making it the go-to for account-level information.
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 for retrieving account and library-wide summary data. While it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, the context is clear: use this tool to get the signed-in username, counts of lists/categories/items, and library-wide settings. It provides enough context to know when to invoke it.
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:

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

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![lighterpack-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/paladini/lighterpack-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/paladini/lighterpack-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/paladini/lighterpack-mcp'

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