Yandex Cloud MCP Server

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation5/5
Every tool targets a distinct resource type with a clear list/get distinction, so there is no overlap. Credential tools are also clearly separated by action.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools use consistent snake_case with verb_noun patterns (list_*, get_*, setup_*, clear_*), making the action and resource immediately obvious.
Tool Count2/5
With 33 tools, the server exceeds the recommended range and feels bloated. Many list/get pairs could be consolidated or served via parameters.
Completeness2/5
The tool surface is entirely read-only, covering only list and get operations. There are no create, update, or delete operations, leaving significant gaps for actual cloud management.
Average 3/5 across 33 of 33 tools scored. Lowest: 2.4/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.
If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.
MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.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?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only says 'Get detailed information' without mentioning read-only guarantees, authentication requirements, rate limits, or what fields the details include. This is a minimal description with no added behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is concise and easy to parse, though it lacks substance across other dimensions. Being short is fine, but it is too thin to be considered excellent.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It fails to convey what 'detailed information' means, what the return value looks like, or any side effects. For a simple get operation, more context is needed.
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%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented folder_id parameter. The description does not even mention folder_id, providing no additional meaning beyond the schema's type and required flag.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific action ('Get') and resource ('detailed information about a specific folder'). It is unambiguous but does not distinguish it from sibling tools like list_yandex_folders, which suggests a listing of folders rather than details of a specific one.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, such as having a folder_id, nor does it point to sibling tools for listing folders.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get detailed VM configuration', which implies a read operation but offers no details about error conditions, required permissions, or the nature of the returned 'configuration'.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While the description is brief, it under-specifies the tool by essentially restating the name with the adjective 'detailed'. It is not effectively concise because it fails to convey necessary information in its short length.
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, output schema, and parameter descriptions, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'detailed VM configuration' includes, any usage prerequisites, or how it relates to sibling tools, leaving significant gaps for the agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description does not mention the 'instance_id' parameter or its purpose. With 0% schema description coverage, the agent is left to guess that the parameter identifies the target VM, adding no semantic value beyond the field name.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get detailed VM configuration' clearly specifies the action (get) and resource (VM configuration). It implies retrieval of a single VM's configuration, which distinguishes it from list_virtual_machines, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, scenarios, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name and sibling context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'list', implying a read operation, but fails to mention authentication needs, parameter-driven filtering, or return structure. The folder_id param suggests filtering, but the description claims 'all' without addressing this.
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 single sentence is concise and front-loaded, but it omits necessary context about the parameter and return behavior. It is under-sized rather than appropriately sized for a tool with a parameter.
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?
For a tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain folder_id, the effect of null, or the structure of the returned list, leaving major gaps in the agent's understanding.
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 0% description coverage for folder_id, and the description does not mention the parameter at all. The agent cannot infer what folder_id does, whether it filters, or how it affects the result.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('storage disks'), clearly indicating it returns all disks. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings like get_disk_details, but 'all' implies a listing operation rather than a detail fetch.
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 others. There is no mention of alternatives, prerequisites, or contextual triggers, leaving the agent without direction on selecting this over sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states a read operation ('List') but doesn't disclose folder scoping, pagination, permissions, or response format. The folder_id dimension is entirely unaddressed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence, front-loaded and free of filler. However, it omits essential information about the parameter, making it concise but not fully effective.
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?
The tool has one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations. The description provides only the bare action, leaving out return values, filtering semantics, and relationship to the broader list_* tool family. It is inadequate for an agent to correctly invoke the tool.
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 defines folder_id with a default of null but no description. The description's phrase 'all virtual machines' could imply no filtering, but it doesn't explain what folder_id does or how it changes results. With 0% schema description coverage, this is a critical gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List all virtual machines' clearly identifies the verb and resource type, distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_vpc_networks. However, it omits the optional folder_id filter, so 'all' is imprecise and doesn't capture the tool's full scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidance is provided. The description doesn't indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_virtual_machine_config, nor does it mention prerequisites or context such as requiring a folder scope.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but it does not disclose return format, failure behaviors, authorization requirements, or any side effects. This is minimal transparency for an unannotated tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no redundant words, making it concise and front-loaded. It could be more informative, but for what it states, it is appropriately sized.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema, no annotations, and no parameter descriptions, the tool description must provide more context to be complete. It only states the basic action and target, leaving out return details, usage context, and parameter semantics, making it incomplete for an agent to reliably invoke it.
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 input schema has one parameter (cloud_id) with zero description coverage, and the tool description does not mention this parameter at all. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema's property name, so it fails to compensate for the low coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get detailed information about a specific cloud' uses a specific verb ('get') and resource ('cloud') and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_yandex_clouds by focusing on a specific cloud rather than listing. However, it does not elaborate on what 'detailed information' includes, so it falls short of a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing credentials), and no exclusions. The only implied usage is that you need details about one cloud, but this is not stated as a recommendation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only operation but does not disclose any specific behavioral traits like required permissions, possible errors, or what 'detailed' configuration includes.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no filler, and it front-loads the core purpose. However, it is terse to the point of under-specification, lacking any structural elaboration.
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 getter with one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but leaves significant gaps: it does not mention the relationship to list_storage_disks, what 'detailed configuration' entails, or what the return value looks like.
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 coverage is 0% and the description adds no meaning to the disk_id parameter. It does not explain what disk_id refers to or how to obtain it, leaving the agent without essential invocation information.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed disk configuration'), clearly indicating it retrieves details about a disk. It is distinct from sibling tools like list_storage_disks, though it does not explicitly differentiate from get_disk_type_configuration.
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, nor any prerequisites or typical usage context. The agent must infer from the name and siblings.
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 available, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state that this is a read-only operation, what specific configuration fields are returned, or whether any permissions are required. The term 'get' implies non-destructive access, but lacks explicit confirmation or additional behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. It avoids unnecessary verbosity, though it is somewhat terse given the lack of additional context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema or annotations, the description should explain what 'detailed snapshot configuration' includes and what the return value looks like. It does neither, leaving significant gaps for a tool that presumably returns a structured configuration object. The description is minimal and does not cover the full context needed for invocation.
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 one parameter (snapshot_id) with 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain the parameter's format, purpose, or expected values. Since the description fails to compensate for the low schema coverage, the agent receives no additional semantic information beyond the parameter name.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves detailed snapshot configuration, with a specific verb ('get') and resource ('snapshot configuration'). It distinguishes itself from sibling list tools like 'list_disk_snapshots' by focusing on a single snapshot's details, though it does not explicitly differentiate from other getter tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'list_disk_snapshots' or 'get_disk_details'. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior, but it only states the basic action. It does not clarify that the operation is read-only, whether credentials are needed, the effect of folder_id, or the output format.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise and front-loaded, with no wasted words. While the word 'all' could be ambiguous, the overall structure is efficient and easy to grasp.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having only one optional parameter and no output schema, the description fails to explain folder_id or what 'all' means. It lacks sufficient context for a caller to use the tool effectively.
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 tool description does not mention folder_id at all. The agent cannot determine the parameter's meaning, default behavior, or how it filters the listing.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List all security groups' clearly identifies the action and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_security_group_details. However, it omits the VPC scope and the optional folder_id filter, which would add precision.
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. There is no mention of scenarios like enumerating security groups before fetching details or how folder_id might be used to scope the query.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention permissions, error handling, return format, pagination, or any side effects, offering no behavioral transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, focused sentence with no redundancy. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it immediately clear.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), but the description still leaves gaps. It does not clarify what 'detailed information' includes, how to address the disk type, or any related list/read context, making the description incomplete for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has only a 'disk_type_id' string with no description, so the description's phrase 'specific disk type' gives the parameter semantic meaning—it identifies which disk type to retrieve. However, it does not specify the expected format (e.g., UUID, name) or provide examples, so it only partially compensates for the 0% schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Get' and names the resource 'detailed information about a specific disk type', making it clear what the tool does. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like list_compute_disk_types, so it misses the top score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as list_compute_disk_types. The description does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'get detailed configuration' and does not disclose behavior such as read-only nature, required permissions, output format, or error conditions. The description is too skeletal to provide meaningful behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action and object. No filler words are present, though it is arguably too brief to carry more meaning.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has only one parameter and no output schema, so the description needs to explain what 'detailed configuration' returns, but it does not. The absence of any behavioral or return-value information makes the description incomplete for an agent that needs to interpret the tool's result.
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 explain the 'image_id' parameter beyond its name. While the parameter name is fairly self-explanatory, no format, source, or validation details are provided, leaving the agent to guess.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'get' and the resource 'detailed configuration of a specific image', which conveys the core purpose. It distinguishes from list-type siblings by emphasizing 'specific image', though it does not explicitly name alternative tools for listing images.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The presence of sibling tools like list_compute_images implies a distinction, but the description does not state when one should be preferred over the other.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation ('Get detailed information') but provides no additional context such as required permissions, rate limits, or the structure of the response. Minimal transparency beyond the tool's name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action verb. No unnecessary words. It is efficient, though somewhat under-specified; it earns its place as a brief statement of purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple parameters and lack of output schema or annotations, the description provides minimal context. It does not describe the returned configuration fields, any required setup, or possible errors. The agent must infer most behavioral details, making it insufficient for confident 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?
The schema has one required parameter 'zone_id' with zero description coverage. The description only hints at the parameter via 'a specific zone' but does not explain what a zone_id is, where to obtain it, or any format constraints. No added value beyond the parameter name.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'zone', indicating it fetches details about a single zone. It is not fully specific about what 'detailed information' entails, but it distinguishes itself from listing tools like list_availability_zones by referencing 'a specific zone'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidance is provided. The description does not explain when to use this tool versus alternative tools (e.g., list_availability_zones) or mention any prerequisites. The context implies a zone ID is needed, but no context for selecting this tool is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it only states a basic list operation. It does not disclose whether the tool is scoped to a folder, whether it returns only snapshots owned by the current user, or any authentication/authorization requirements. The 'all' phrasing is also potentially misleading given the folder_id parameter.
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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise for a simple list operation, though it could be augmented without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations, output schema, and any parameter explanation, the description is under-specified. It does not clarify the role of folder_id, the output format, or edge cases like empty results or permission errors. This makes the tool only minimally comprehensible.
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 schema has one optional parameter (folder_id) with zero description coverage, and the description does not mention it at all. This leaves the parameter's meaning entirely unexplained, though the default of null and the parameter name provide some hint. A brief note that folder_id filters the listing would have helped.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List all disk snapshots' uses a specific verb ('list') and a clear resource ('disk snapshots'), and the name itself distinguishes it from siblings like get_snapshot_details (which targets a single snapshot) and list_storage_disks (which targets disks). However, it does not explicitly state that it can be filtered by folder_id, which would make the 'all' claim ambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_snapshot_details or how the optional folder_id parameter influences the result set. No context is given about prerequisites, scoping, or when a user might prefer a different tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It implies a read-only operation via 'Get', but discloses no other behavioral details such as requiring credentials, what 'configuration' includes, or potential errors. This is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence with no unnecessary words. Its brevity is appropriate for the tool's simple scope, though it sacrifices explanatory richness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations, output schema, and parameter descriptions, this minimal description is insufficient. It does not explain what 'detailed configuration' returns, how to identify the network, or any prerequisites. The tool is simple but still needs more contextual detail.
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 explain what 'network_id' represents or how to obtain it. The phrase 'specific network' only hints at the parameter's function without providing meaningful semantic guidance.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed configuration of a specific network'), making its core purpose clear. It distinguishes from sibling list tools (e.g., list_vpc_networks) by emphasizing a single resource's detailed config, but 'network' is somewhat generic without explicitly saying 'VPC network'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no mention of related tools like list_vpc_networks for obtaining network IDs. The usage context is only implied by the phrase 'specific network'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, how folder_id=null behaves, or any authentication requirements.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no redundant words, earning a high score.
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 simple one-parameter tool, the description is adequate at a surface level, but it omits explanation of the optional folder_id behavior and does not specify what constitutes an image or return format, leaving gaps for agents.
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 only parameter folder_id lacks a description in the schema. The description mentions 'specified folder' but does not clarify the parameter's format, optionality, or default behavior.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it lists all images within a specified folder, using the specific verb 'list' and resource 'images'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_image_configuration, which fetches a single image's configuration, though not explicitly named.
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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative list tools or when folder_id is needed. It lacks explicit context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states 'List all VPC networks' without disclosing whether it is read-only, how folder_id filters results, pagination behavior, or any authentication requirements. This minimal information leaves the agent unaware of behavioral nuances.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and easily parsed, making it ideal for quick comprehension.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite the tool's simplicity, the description is incomplete: it omits any explanation of folder_id, the scope of 'all' (e.g., current folder or entire cloud), or return format. With no annotations or output schema, the agent lacks critical context 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?
The schema has one optional parameter, folder_id, with no description (0% coverage). The description does not mention folder_id at all, so the agent cannot infer its meaning or effect. Since the description fails to compensate for the schemas lack of detail, parameter semantics are insufficient.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action and resource: 'List all VPC networks.' It differentiates from sibling tools like list_vpc_subnets by specifying the resource type. However, it doesn't mention the optional folder_id parameter, so the scope of 'all' is slightly ambiguous.
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 instead of alternatives. There is no mention of how folder_id affects the call or how this relates to other listing tools. The description offers no exclusions or alternative suggestions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'get detailed configuration' and does not mention whether this is a read-only operation, what the returned data looks like, or any potential side effects, authentication, or rate limits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that gets straight to the point, front-loading the key information. It is not verbose, but it borders on under-specification, which prevents a perfect score.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema, no annotations, and only one parameter, the description is the sole source of context. It does not specify the structure of the returned configuration, any prerequisites, or how the gateway_id is meant to be used, making it incomplete for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.
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 one required parameter, gateway_id, but schema description coverage is 0%. The description hints that the parameter identifies a specific gateway but does not explain its format, origin, or how to obtain it, leaving the agent without enough semantic detail.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get'), the resource ('gateway'), and the scope ('specific'), which effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_vpc_gateways. The verb+resource+scope combination is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as list_vpc_gateways for enumerating gateways or other configuration getters. The description does not specify any prerequisites, context, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic listing action and does not explain what happens when folder_id is omitted (despite being optional with default null), nor does it mention pagination, filtering, or scope defaults. The verb 'list' implies read-only, but this is not explicit.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler, making it concise. However, it lacks useful context, so it is efficient but not maximally helpful. This aligns with other one-sentence tool descriptions that earn a 4.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple, but the description is incomplete for an unannotated tool. The optional folder_id with default null creates ambiguity about scope when not specified, and there is no mention of return values or list behavior. The absence of output schema and annotations increases the need for a more complete description.
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 no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It only says 'specified folder', echoing the parameter name, but does not clarify that folder_id is optional, what null means, or the expected format. This is insufficient for a parameter with a default value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('List'), the resource ('gateways'), and scope ('in specified folder'), distinguishing it from sibling list tools like list_vpc_networks and get_gateway_configuration. The only minor ambiguity is 'specified folder' versus the optional folder_id parameter, but this does not obscure the core 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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of get_gateway_configuration for details, no exclusions, and no situational context. This is a bare statement of function with no selection help.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure, but it only states the operation. It does not explain the effect of folder_id, whether the list is scoped globally or per folder, or any pagination/return format details. The behavior is implied but not explicit.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, focused sentence with no redundant words. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple list operation, earning full marks for conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple, but the presence of an optional folder_id parameter and lack of output schema or annotations means the description should provide more context about scope and filtering. It does not, leaving the tool under-specified for effective invocation.
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 folder_id parameter at all. The agent has no semantic understanding of what folder_id means or how it affects the results, leaving the parameter completely unexplained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List all VPC subnets' uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('VPC subnets'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_vpc_networks and list_vpc_security_groups. It states exactly what the tool does with no ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention the optional folder_id parameter or any filtering behavior. The description is purely functional and lacks context for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state that the operation is read-only, does not clarify the meaning of 'all accessible clouds', and does not mention permissions or pagination. The phrase 'in organization or all accessible clouds' is vague about what happens when organization_id is null.
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 front-loads the action and resource, and every word contributes to the core purpose. This is appropriately concise for a list-type tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool appears simple (1 optional parameter), but the description lacks crucial context: the exact effect of organization_id, the meaning of 'all accessible clouds', and what the response looks like. With no output schema and no annotations, the agent has insufficient information to handle edge cases or understand the tool's behavior in different organizational contexts.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The sole parameter (organization_id) has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. It references 'organization', which likely maps to organization_id, but it's not explicit that providing organization_id filters results to that organization while omitting it lists all accessible clouds. This adds partial meaning but leaves ambiguity.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description names a specific verb ('List') and resource ('clouds'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_virtual_machines and list_yandex_folders. The phrase 'in organization or all accessible clouds' hints at the optional organization_id parameter but doesn't explicitly state the conditional behavior, which slightly obscures the full scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that get_cloud_details_info should be used for detailed cloud information, or that list_yandex_folders is for folders. The only implied usage is the generic purpose of listing clouds, with no context on prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states that credentials are set up for the session, but does not disclose side effects, whether it overwrites existing credentials, requires authentication (beyond the IAM token itself), validates input, or returns a confirmation. The presence of an output schema is not leveraged in the description.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no redundant information. It is appropriately front-loaded and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that this is a state-changing setup tool with no annotations and no explanation of session behavior, the description is incomplete. It should mention that it initializes the session for subsequent Yandex Cloud operations, possibly that it replaces existing credentials, and any invocation prerequisites.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema descriptions for both iam_token and folder_id fully cover the parameter semantics (format and type). The tool description adds no further explanation about how these parameters are used, so it provides no value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the verb 'Setup' with the resource 'Yandex Cloud credentials' and specifies 'for the session', which distinguishes it from persistent credential management. However, 'setup' is somewhat generic and could be more explicit (e.g., 'configure' or 'store'), so it's clear but not perfectly differentiated.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool relative to siblings like get_credentials_status or clear_credentials. It does not mention prerequisites, ordering, or alternatives.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It fails to disclose any behavioral traits beyond the core action, such as return format, side effects, whether credentials are required, or if it makes external calls. The agent has no idea what to expect of the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action and includes parenthetical clarification. No wasted words or repetition, perfectly sized for the tool's simplicity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having only one parameter and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain how the suggestion is returned or how the agent should use it in subsequent queries. Given the tool's purpose to guide scope selection, a brief note on output or usage flow would make it contextually 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 single parameter resource_type is fully described in the schema ('Type of resource (vms, networks, disks, etc.)'). The tool description adds no additional meaning to the parameter, just connects it to 'resource queries'. With 100% schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Suggest') and resource ('scope for resource queries'), explicitly listing the scope types (folder/cloud/organization). This distinguishes it from all sibling tools, which are list/get operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus the many list/get siblings. It doesn't mention that it should be used to determine scope before running resource queries, nor any prerequisites like credentials. The description only states functionality, not usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Since annotations are absent, the description must disclose behavior, but it only says 'get' which implies a read operation. It does not describe error handling, response format, or any special conditions, leaving the agent without safety or side-effect information.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no redundant words. It is appropriately short for a simple tool.
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 tool with no output schema or annotations, the description is too sparse to fully inform the agent. It omits return value details and usage guidance, though the single parameter is self-explanatory.
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 schema has no descriptions, and the tool description adds no information about the subnet_id parameter beyond its name. It does not specify the type, format, or meaning beyond the obvious.
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 retrieves detailed configuration for a specific subnet, using a specific verb and resource. The word 'specific' distinguishes it from list_vpc_subnets, which lists all subnets.
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 like list_vpc_subnets or get_network_configuration. It does not mention prerequisites, expected usage context, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It implies a read operation via 'List' but does not explain behavior when folder_id is null, pagination, response format, or any other runtime side effects. This is a significant gap for a tool with an optional scoping parameter.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource, with no redundant or filler content.
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 one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is minimal and leaves key runtime behaviors undefined. The effect of omitting folder_id and the structure of the response are not addressed, making it insufficient for fully confident invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaning by linking 'specified folder' to the folder_id parameter, which has no schema description (0% coverage). However, it does not clarify that folder_id is optional with a null default, nor does it provide format or constraints, so compensation is partial.
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 identifies the action ('List') and resource ('static IP addresses') clearly, distinguishing it from sibling VPC listing tools. However, the phrase 'specified folder' is ambiguous because the folder_id parameter is optional with a null default, so the exact scope when omitted is unclear.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_vpc_networks or list_vpc_subnets. The description lacks any mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or typical usage contexts.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are absent, so the description must disclose behavior. It only states the action and scope; it does not mention read-only nature, behavior when folder_id is omitted, pagination, or required permissions. This is a significant gap given no annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single focused sentence with no extraneous content. It fronts the verb and resource directly, making it appropriately concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
While the tool is simple, the description omits what happens when folder_id is not provided (since it's optional) and offers no context about the returned list or any side effects. Given no annotations or output schema, the description is not complete enough.
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 only references 'specified folder' without explaining the folder_id parameter, its optionality, or default behavior. It adds little beyond the field name, so it cannot compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description explicitly states the action ('List'), resource ('route tables'), and scope ('in specified folder'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools for other VPC resources, earning a full score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No information is provided about when to use this tool versus other list tools, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The context is purely declarative, so the agent receives no guidance on selecting this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates the operation is a read (by use of 'Get'), but does not disclose whether authentication is required, what specific configuration elements are returned, or whether there are any side effects. This is a minimal disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that gets straight to the point. It has no filler and is easy to scan.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is a simple one-parameter getter, but with no output schema and no annotations, the description should at least clarify what 'configuration' includes. It states the purpose but omits return details, preconditions, and any contrast with sibling list tools. Given the low complexity, a more complete description would be comparatively short.
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 schema has one required parameter, security_group_id, with 0% schema description coverage. The description does not explain the parameter's format, meaning, or how it relates to the security group. The field name is self-explanatory, but the description adds no value 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 verb 'Get' with the resource 'security group configuration', clearly indicating a read operation for a specific security group. It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'list_vpc_security_groups' which performs a list operation rather than retrieving details for one group.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it should be used after listing security groups, nor does it state any preconditions or exclusions. The only implied context is the verb 'Get', which suggests a detail lookup, but no explicit when or why.
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 responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Get detailed configuration,' which implies a read operation but says nothing about permissions, error behavior, or response structure. It adds little beyond what the name already conveys.
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 one concise sentence and easily digestible, but it largely paraphrases the tool name, offering only the word 'static IP address' as additional context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description gives only the core purpose. It lacks behavioral details, parameter guidance, and return value explanation, making it minimally 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 schema has a single address_id parameter with 0% description coverage. The description's reference to 'a specific static IP address' hints that address_id identifies the IP, but it does not explain the format, where to find it, or any constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Get' and identifies the exact resource ('detailed configuration of a specific static IP address'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling get_*_configuration tools by naming the resource type.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for retrieving configuration of a specific IP address, but it does not provide explicit when-to-use guidance, alternatives, or exclusions. It does not mention that list_vpc_addresses could be used to find address_id, for example.
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 relies on the verb 'get' to imply a read-only operation. It does not disclose return format, error behavior, or prerequisite credentials, but the operation is straightforwardly a getter.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, no filler. Efficiently communicates the essential purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple single-parameter getter, the description is minimally sufficient, but it lacks usage guidance and parameter elaboration. No output schema or annotations exist to fill these gaps.
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 mention route_table_id or explain how to obtain it. The parameter name is self-explanatory, but the description adds no meaning beyond the schema's 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 clearly states the tool's function: getting detailed configuration for a specific route table. It differentiates from sibling list_vpc_route_tables by using 'get' and 'specific', indicating a targeted lookup rather than a listing.
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 list_vpc_route_tables or other get_* configuration tools. The description only states what it does, without exclusions or context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only states the output content, with no mention of read-only nature, error handling, response shape, or any side effects. For a 'get' operation this is minimal but still insufficient for full transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. It includes the key object ('organization context') and the content ('clouds and folders hierarchy'), with no irrelevant detail.
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 appears simple with no parameters and no output schema. The description hints at the return structure (hierarchy) but does not elaborate on the exact shape or how the result relates to sibling tools. Given the lack of annotations and output schema, a bit more detail would improve completeness, but it is minimally adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and the schema is empty, so there is nothing to describe. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description does not need to compensate for missing schema info.
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 retrieves 'organization context' and specifies the content: 'available clouds and folders hierarchy'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that list individual clouds or folders separately.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the sibling list functions or get details tools. There is no mention of alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action and return type but does not mention side effects, reversibility, scope of clearing, or any security implications. The phrase 'from session' hints at locality but is vague.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, with one clear action sentence and a separate return note. It is front-loaded with the core behavior and contains no unnecessary words, making it easy for an agent to process.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter tool with a simple operation, the description is mostly complete. It states the action and the return value. However, it lacks any explanation of when or why you would clear credentials, and provides no context about related setup/get tools. This is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific info, but none is needed. It clearly states the operation on stored credentials, which is sufficient for a param-less 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 uses a specific verb 'Clear' and resource 'stored credentials from session', which precisely defines the action. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like setup_credentials and get_credentials_status by focusing on removal rather than setup or retrieval.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage context is provided. The description does not explain when to clear credentials (e.g., after session completion) or contrast with setup_credentials and get_credentials_status. There are no exclusion criteria or alternative recommendations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only says 'Check current credentials status' without explicitly stating read-only nature, prerequisites, or error conditions, leaving significant ambiguity.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at two short lines, with no wasted words. The 'Returns' line adds a small but relevant piece of information, making it appropriately sized for a no-parameter tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the zero-parameter signature and the presence of an output schema, the description is largely complete for a status check. It could benefit from noting whether credentials must be configured first, but the output schema likely covers return details.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description adds no parameter details, but none are required; the baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Check' with resource 'credentials status', clearly distinguishing it from sibling setup/clear operations. The return value note reinforces the purpose as a read-only status query.
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 intended usage context—checking status after setup or before operations—is implied but not explicitly stated. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, so guidance is minimal.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only adds the qualifier 'accessible' to convey access-based filtering, but fails to mention output format, pagination, ordering, or other behavioral traits. The 'List' verb implies read-only, but this is implicit.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource, with no redundant information. It earns every word.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema) and clear sibling context, the description is largely complete. It could specify the return value (e.g., list of folder IDs and names) but this is not critical for a list operation and the overall context is sufficient.
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 description compensates for the 0% schema coverage by explaining the effect of the only parameter: cloud_id is used to specify the cloud scope. The phrase 'or all accessible folders' also implies the default behavior when the parameter is omitted, adding clear semantic meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('folders'), and clarifies the scope ('specified cloud or all accessible folders'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_yandex_clouds (clouds) and get_folder_details_info (details of a single folder), though it could be more explicit about what a 'folder' is.
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 'in specified cloud or all accessible folders' directly communicates the two usage modes: provide a cloud_id to scope or omit it to list all accessible folders. It provides clear context but 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.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses the optional zone scoping behavior ('specified zone or all zones') and 'List' implies read-only. However, it lacks details on return format, pagination, or error handling.
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, front-loaded, and contains no filler. It efficiently states the operation and scope without unnecessary detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple (one optional parameter, no output schema), and the description provides enough information for invocation: purpose and parameter semantics. It does not mention return format or differentiation from related tools, but the low complexity lowers the completeness bar.
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 explicitly explains the effect of the sole parameter zone_id ('specified zone or all zones'), clarifying that omitting it means all zones. This effectively covers the parameter's meaning.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'List' with resource 'disk types' and clearly defines the scope ('in specified zone or all zones'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_disk_type_configuration (retrieves a specific disk type) and list_storage_disks (lists disks, not types).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_disk_type_configuration. It only states what the tool does, with no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the action ('list all') but does not describe the return format, potential size of the response, pagination, or error behavior. As a read-only list operation, it is not misleading, but it adds minimal behavioral context beyond the basic action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words or repetition. It is highly concise and well-structured for the tool's simplicity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter list tool, the description is sufficient to understand the core function. However, it does not mention what fields or format the returned zones will have, which might be useful for an agent. Given the absence of an output schema and the simplicity of the operation, this is acceptable but not fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool takes zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (empty schema). Since there are no parameters to document, the description adds no parameter information, and the baseline of 4 is appropriate. There is nothing missing in 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 'List all availability zones' uses a specific verb ('list') and resource ('availability zones'), making the purpose immediately clear. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'get_zone_configuration', which fetches details of a specific zone, by indicating this tool returns all zones.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage (when you need to list all availability zones) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool. There is no guidance comparing it to sibling tools like 'get_zone_configuration', so the usage context is only implicit.
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:

[![ycmcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/romati88/ycmcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/romati88/ycmcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![ycmcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/romati88/ycmcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/romati88/ycmcp)

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/romati88/ycmcp'

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