RushDB
Server Quality Checklist
Latest release: v1.0.0
- Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have distinct purposes with clear boundaries, such as CreateRecord vs. UpdateRecord vs. DeleteRecord. However, there is some overlap between DeleteRecord and DeleteRecordById (described as aliases), and FindOneRecord vs. FindUniqRecord could be confusing without careful reading of descriptions, though the latter emphasizes uniqueness.
Naming Consistency4/5Tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., CreateRecord, DeleteRecord, FindRecords) with clear action-object pairs. Minor deviations include GetQueryBuilderPrompt and HelpAddToClient, which are more descriptive but still maintain readability without disrupting the overall pattern.
Tool Count3/5With 29 tools, the count feels heavy for a database server, potentially overwhelming for agents. While it covers many operations, it could be streamlined by merging redundant tools like DeleteRecord and DeleteRecordById, or consolidating some find operations to reduce complexity.
Completeness5/5The tool set provides comprehensive coverage for database operations, including CRUD (CreateRecord, GetRecord, UpdateRecord, DeleteRecord), bulk operations, relationships (AttachRelation, DetachRelation), transactions, and utilities like export and settings. No obvious gaps exist for core database workflows.
Average 3/5 across 29 of 29 tools scored. Lowest: 2.2/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
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.
This repository includes a glama.json configuration file.
This server has been verified by its author.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.
How to sync the server with GitHub?
Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.
To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.
How is the quality score calculated?
The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).
Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.
Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).
Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.
Tool Scores
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Find relationships' implies a read-only search operation, but the description doesn't mention permissions needed, pagination behavior (beyond what's in schema), rate limits, or what the output looks like. It's minimally informative for a tool with 4 parameters.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at just 4 words, but this comes at the cost of being under-specified rather than efficiently informative. It's front-loaded but lacks necessary detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what relationships are, what format results return, or how this differs from other find/search tools in the server. The context signals indicate complexity that the description doesn't address.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all 4 parameters (where, limit, skip, orderBy). The description adds no parameter information beyond what's already in the schema, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Find relationships in the database' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name 'FindRelationships' without adding specificity. It doesn't explain what kind of relationships, what database, or how this differs from sibling tools like FindRecords or FindOneRecord.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5Does 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. With many sibling tools for data operations (FindRecords, FindOneRecord, GetRecordsByIds, etc.), the description offers no context about when relationships should be searched versus other record types or query methods.
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 mentions 'unique record' but does not clarify what happens if multiple records match (e.g., throws an error, returns first), nor does it discuss permissions, rate limits, or response format. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely queries data.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that states the core purpose without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it could be more front-loaded with differentiation from siblings to improve clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior (e.g., uniqueness enforcement, error handling), usage context, and return values, making it inadequate for an agent to use this tool effectively without guesswork.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('labels' and 'where'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying search criteria, which is redundant with the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool's purpose as 'Find a unique record that matches the given search criteria,' which is clear but vague. It specifies the verb 'find' and resource 'unique record,' but does not differentiate it from siblings like 'FindOneRecord' or 'FindRecords,' leaving ambiguity about what makes this tool distinct.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when to choose 'FindUniqRecord' over similar tools like 'FindOneRecord' or 'FindRecords,' nor does it specify any prerequisites or exclusions for its use.
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 full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Get' implies a read operation, it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, has rate limits, returns structured data or raw information, or has any side effects. The description is minimal and lacks important behavioral context for a tool with no 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with just one sentence containing no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently communicates the basic function without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what information is returned about transactions, whether this includes metadata or just status, or how the output relates to other transaction tools. The minimal description leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's full behavior and output.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 100% description coverage with the transactionId parameter clearly documented. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides. With complete schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the description doesn't need to compensate for schema gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get information about a transaction' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('transaction'), but it's vague about what specific information is retrieved. It distinguishes from siblings like TransactionBegin/Commit/Rollback by focusing on retrieval rather than transaction management, but doesn't specify what kind of transaction data is returned.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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's no mention of prerequisites (needing a transaction ID), comparison to similar tools like GetRecord or GetRecordsByIds, or context about when transaction information is needed versus record information.
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 full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It mentions creating relationships but doesn't disclose permissions needed, whether it's idempotent, error handling, or what happens if relationships already exist. For a mutation tool with 6 parameters, this is inadequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. Every part earns its place by clarifying scope (single or multiple targets).
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the relationship types, direction implications, transaction usage, or what the tool returns. Given the complexity and lack of structured data, more context is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying support for multiple targets, which is already covered in the schema's 'targetIds' description. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Create a relationship') and resource ('between records'), specifying it can handle single or multiple targets. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'DetachRelation' or explain what types of relationships exist beyond the basic concept.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'DetachRelation' for removing relationships, or how it relates to other record operations in the sibling list. The description only states what it does, not when it's appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- 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 states the action ('Create multiple records') but lacks details on permissions, atomicity (implied by 'single operation' but not clarified), error handling, or response format. This is inadequate for a mutation 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and directly conveys the core functionality without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., atomicity, error handling), usage context, and return values, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand and invoke it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents the three parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying bulk creation, which is already clear from the tool name and schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Create') and resource ('multiple records'), and specifies the scope ('in a single operation'). It distinguishes from the sibling 'CreateRecord' by emphasizing bulk creation, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other bulk operations like 'BulkDeleteRecords'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'CreateRecord' for single records or 'BulkDeleteRecords' for deletions. The description implies bulk scenarios but lacks explicit 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 provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Delete' implies a destructive mutation, it lacks details on permissions, reversibility, side effects, rate limits, or response format. This is inadequate for a bulk deletion tool with no 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action and scope, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (bulk deletion with query filtering), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't address critical aspects like confirmation prompts, error handling, or what happens on success/failure, leaving significant gaps for safe agent use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents the three parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying query-based filtering, which is already covered by the 'where' parameter's schema description. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Delete multiple records') and target ('matching a query'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like DeleteRecord or DeleteRecordById, which appear to handle single-record deletions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 DeleteRecord or DeleteRecordById, nor does it mention prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual factors. It merely states what the tool does without 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Create a new record' which implies a write operation, but lacks details on permissions, idempotency, error handling, or response format. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence with no wasted words, making it highly concise and front-loaded. It efficiently communicates the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity as a write operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to address behavioral aspects like atomicity hints from 'transactionId', potential side effects, or what the return value might be, leaving critical gaps for an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents all parameters (label, data, transactionId) with descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as examples or constraints, resulting in a baseline score of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Create') and resource ('new record in the database'), making the purpose evident. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'BulkCreateRecords' or 'SetRecord', which appear to have similar creation functions, missing explicit differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 'BulkCreateRecords' for multiple records or 'SetRecord' which might imply upsert behavior. There's no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving usage unclear relative to 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 provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Delete' implies a destructive mutation, the description doesn't specify whether this operation is reversible, what permissions are required, what happens to associated data, or what the response looks like. This is inadequate for a destructive 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loads the essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that this is a destructive mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks critical behavioral details (e.g., reversibility, permissions, side effects) and doesn't help differentiate it from sibling deletion tools, leaving significant gaps for agent understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'propertyId' fully documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., format examples, constraints, or edge cases), so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Delete') and target resource ('a property from the database'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like DeleteRecord or DeleteRecordById, which also perform deletion operations on different resources.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 DeleteRecord or DeleteRecordById. There's no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent with insufficient information to choose between deletion tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a deletion operation, which implies destructive behavior, but doesn't mention whether deletions are permanent, reversible, require specific permissions, or have side effects. The mention of 'transactionId' in the schema suggests atomic operations, but the description doesn't explain this behavioral aspect.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise - a single sentence that communicates the core purpose and relationship to another tool. Every word earns its place with no wasted text. The information is front-loaded and immediately understandable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens after deletion, whether there are confirmation prompts, what the return value might be, or error conditions. The transaction capability hinted in the schema isn't explained in the description, leaving important behavioral context undocumented.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema. It doesn't explain the relationship between recordId and transactionId or provide usage examples. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Delete') and resource ('a record from the database'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It also mentions it's an alias of DeleteRecordById, which helps distinguish it from other deletion tools like BulkDeleteRecords. However, it doesn't fully differentiate from DeleteRecordById since they appear to be functionally identical.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 BulkDeleteRecords or DeleteRecordById. While it mentions being an alias of DeleteRecordById, it doesn't explain why one would choose this tool over that one or when to use it versus other deletion methods. No context about prerequisites or exclusions is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool deletes a record, implying a destructive mutation, but fails to mention critical aspects like whether deletion is permanent, requires specific permissions, has side effects (e.g., cascading deletions), or what happens on success/failure. This leaves significant gaps for a destructive operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence that efficiently conveys the core action without any wasted words. It is front-loaded with the key verb 'Delete', making it easy to scan and understand immediately, which is ideal for conciseness in tool descriptions.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's destructive nature, lack of annotations, and absence of an output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not address behavioral risks, return values, or error conditions, which are critical for safe invocation. For a deletion tool with no structured safety hints, more context is needed to guide the agent effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting both parameters ('recordId' as required and 'transactionId' as optional). The description adds no additional semantic context beyond implying the use of an ID, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting without compensating for any gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Delete') and target resource ('a record by its ID'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'DeleteRecord' or 'BulkDeleteRecords' by specifying the 'by ID' method, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them. The description avoids tautology by not merely restating the tool name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'DeleteRecord' or 'BulkDeleteRecords', nor does it mention prerequisites such as needing the record ID. The description implies usage for deletion by ID but offers no context on exclusions or best practices, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool exports records to CSV but doesn't describe what happens during export (e.g., file generation, download, side effects), permissions required, rate limits, or error handling. This is a significant gap for a tool with potential data access and output implications.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids unnecessary details, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place by conveying essential information about the tool's function.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral aspects like what the export produces (e.g., a file, data stream), error conditions, or usage context. Without annotations or output schema, more descriptive context is needed for adequate agent understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all 4 parameters (labels, where, limit, orderBy). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond implying filtering and sorting through the export context. This meets the baseline of 3 since the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Export') and resource ('records') with the output format ('to CSV format'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'FindRecords' or 'GetRecordsByIds' by specifying the export functionality rather than just retrieval. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all potential export-related tools since none are listed among siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, when not to use it, or compare it to sibling tools like 'FindRecords' for viewing data or 'BulkCreateRecords' for importing. Usage is implied only by the name and description, with no explicit context provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it finds 'a single record' but doesn't clarify what happens if multiple records match (e.g., returns first, errors, or requires unique criteria). It also omits details like permissions needed, rate limits, or response format, which are critical for a search tool with no output schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return value, error conditions, or behavioral nuances (e.g., handling of multiple matches). For a tool with 2 parameters and nested objects, more context is needed to ensure reliable use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters (labels and where). The description mentions 'search criteria' which aligns with the schema but adds no additional meaning about parameter usage, constraints, or examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Find a single record that matches the given search criteria.' It specifies the verb ('Find') and resource ('record'), and distinguishes it from bulk operations like FindRecords. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from FindUniqRecord, which appears to be a similar sibling tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to choose FindOneRecord over FindRecords (for multiple records), FindUniqRecord (for unique records), or GetRecord (by ID). There's no context about prerequisites, error handling, or typical use cases.
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 full burden but only states it's a search operation. It doesn't disclose whether this is read-only (implied but not explicit), potential performance impacts, pagination behavior beyond the limit/skip parameters, or what happens with empty results. For a search tool with 4 parameters, this is insufficient behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a search tool and front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a search tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'properties' refer to in this database context, what fields are searchable, the return format, or error conditions. The agent lacks sufficient context to use this tool effectively compared to siblings.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all 4 parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying a 'search query' maps to the 'where' parameter. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but doesn't enhance understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Find') and resource ('properties in the database'), specifying it's a search operation. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like FindRecords, FindOneRecord, or FindPropertyById, which also retrieve data from the database.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 FindRecords or FindPropertyById. It mentions 'using a search query' but doesn't clarify if this is for general property searches versus more specific sibling tools, leaving the agent without context for 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 states the tool finds a property but doesn't describe what happens if the ID is invalid (e.g., error handling), whether it's a read-only operation, or any performance considerations. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely queries data.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., property details or null), error conditions, or how it differs from similar tools like 'FindProperties'. For a retrieval tool with no structured output documentation, this is inadequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the parameter 'propertyId' documented as 'ID of the property to retrieve'. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond this, such as format examples or constraints, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose as 'Find a specific property by ID', which includes both the verb ('Find') and resource ('property'). It distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'FindProperties' (plural retrieval) and 'GetRecord' (record-focused), though it doesn't explicitly mention these distinctions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, such as needing a valid property ID, or compare it to siblings like 'FindProperties' (for multiple properties) or 'GetRecord' (for records).
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 states the tool finds records but doesn't explain key behaviors: whether it's read-only or mutative, if it requires authentication, how it handles errors, or what the output format looks like. For a search tool with complex parameters, this is inadequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence: 'Find records in the database using a search query.' It's front-loaded with the core purpose and wastes no words, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (7 parameters with nested objects) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like safety, permissions, or result format, leaving gaps for an agent to understand how to use it effectively in context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, providing details for all 7 parameters (e.g., labels for filtering, where for conditions, limit for max returns). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Find records in the database using a search query.' It specifies the verb ('Find') and resource ('records'), making the action clear. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like FindOneRecord, FindUniqRecord, or GetRecordsByIds, which also retrieve records but with different scopes or methods.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention siblings like FindOneRecord for single records or GetRecordsByIds for specific IDs, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. This leaves the agent without 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states it 'retrieves' records, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't cover critical aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, pagination, or what happens if some IDs are invalid. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool and front-loads the core purpose immediately.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (retrieving multiple records by ID), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values, error conditions, or behavioral constraints, which are essential for an agent to use this tool effectively in a broader context with many sibling tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'recordIds' clearly documented in the schema as 'Array of record IDs to retrieve'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without adding value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('records by their IDs'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'GetRecord' (singular) and 'FindRecords' (search-based). However, it doesn't specify what type of records or from which system, leaving some ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 'GetRecord' (for single records) or 'FindRecords' (for query-based retrieval). It doesn't mention prerequisites, limitations, or typical use cases, 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 provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions opening a browser but doesn't specify whether this launches a new window/tab, requires user interaction, handles errors, or has any side effects. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that interacts with external systems.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and gets straight to the point without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool that opens external browsers with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens after opening (e.g., success/failure indicators, whether control returns immediately), nor does it address potential security or compatibility considerations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents the 'url' parameter thoroughly. The description adds no additional meaning about parameter usage, format expectations, or constraints beyond what's in the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Open a web browser') and the target resource ('to a specific URL'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools, as none appear to be browser-related alternatives in the provided list.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions. It simply states what the tool does without context about appropriate scenarios or limitations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It implies a read operation ('Get'), but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it's safe, if it requires authentication, rate limits, pagination behavior (beyond schema parameters), or what the output looks like. For a tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's purpose, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return values, error conditions, or behavioral context needed for effective use. For a data retrieval tool with filtering and ordering, more context is warranted to compensate for the lack of structured metadata.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters (propertyId, query, orderBy, limit, skip) with descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as examples or context for parameter use. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get values for a specific property' clearly states the action (Get) and resource (values for a property). It distinguishes from siblings like FindProperties (which likely lists properties) or GetRecord (which retrieves records), but doesn't explicitly differentiate them. The purpose is specific but lacks sibling comparison details.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions. For example, it doesn't clarify if this is for retrieving metadata values versus data values, or when to use FindRecords instead. This leaves usage ambiguous.
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 states the tool 'replaces all fields', implying a destructive mutation, but doesn't mention permissions, side effects, error handling, or response format. This is inadequate for a mutation 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's destructive nature (replaces all fields), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to address critical aspects like what happens to existing data, atomicity hints from 'transactionId', or return values, leaving significant gaps for agent understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying that 'data' contains the new values and 'recordId' identifies the target, which is already clear from the schema. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Replace') and resource ('all fields of a record'), making the purpose specific. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'UpdateRecord' or 'CreateRecord', which prevents a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 'UpdateRecord' or 'CreateRecord'. It lacks context about prerequisites, exclusions, or typical scenarios, leaving the agent with minimal usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Commit a database transaction' implies a write operation that makes changes permanent, but it doesn't specify critical behaviors like whether this requires specific permissions, what happens on success/failure, if it's idempotent, or any side effects. This leaves significant gaps for safe agent usage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's perfectly front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately scannable and understandable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a transaction commit tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens after commit (e.g., changes become permanent, transaction ends), potential errors, or return values. Given the critical nature of database transactions and lack of structured metadata, more behavioral context is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the single 'transactionId' parameter adequately. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, but doesn't need to compensate for gaps. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('commit') and resource ('database transaction'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'TransactionRollback' which would handle the opposite operation, missing an opportunity for clearer differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 'TransactionRollback' or when it's appropriate within a transaction workflow. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., requiring an active transaction via 'TransactionBegin') or context for proper sequencing.
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. 'Rollback' implies a destructive write operation that reverses changes, but the description doesn't specify what gets affected (e.g., data changes undone), potential side effects, error conditions, or required permissions. This is inadequate for a mutation 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse. Every word earns its place without redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks critical context like what the rollback entails, success/failure indicators, dependencies on TransactionBegin, or how it interacts with other tools. The agent is left with significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior and implications.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'transactionId' fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, such as format examples or context. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Rollback') and resource ('a database transaction'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from siblings like TransactionBegin and TransactionCommit by specifying the rollback action. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other transaction-related tools beyond the name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an active transaction), when-not-to-use scenarios, or how it relates to siblings like TransactionCommit or TransactionGet. The agent must 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 provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'partial update' but doesn't clarify what that entails (e.g., merges vs. overwrites), permissions required, error handling (e.g., if recordId doesn't exist), or side effects. For a mutation tool, this leaves critical behavioral traits undocumented, though it correctly implies a write operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It front-loads the core purpose ('Update an existing record') and adds a clarifying detail ('partial update') without redundancy. Every word earns its place, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavior (e.g., error cases, side effects), output expectations, or integration with sibling tools like transactions. While concise, it doesn't provide enough context for safe and effective use in this environment.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by implying 'partial update' relates to the 'data' parameter, but it doesn't explain semantics like what 'partial' means or how 'transactionId' affects atomicity. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Update') and resource ('an existing record'), with the qualifier '(partial update)' adding specificity about the update type. It distinguishes from siblings like 'SetRecord' (which might imply full replacement) and 'CreateRecord' (new records). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all alternatives like 'BulkCreateRecords' or 'DeleteRecord'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing record ID), exclusions (e.g., not for bulk updates), or comparisons to siblings like 'SetRecord', 'BulkCreateRecords', or transaction-related tools. Usage is implied by the name but not explicitly stated.
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 states the action ('Begin') but doesn't explain what a database transaction entails, whether it requires specific permissions, if it's reversible, what happens on failure, or any rate limits. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that initiates a potentially state-changing operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it highly efficient and easy to parse, which is ideal for conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of initiating a database transaction, the lack of annotations and output schema, and the description's minimal detail, this is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects, return values, or integration with sibling tools, leaving the agent with insufficient context for safe and effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 1 parameter with 100% description coverage, so the schema fully documents the TTL parameter. The description adds no parameter-specific information, but with 0 required parameters and high schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate. The slight boost to 4 reflects that the description implies the tool's purpose without needing parameter details, though it doesn't compensate for any gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Begin a new database transaction' clearly states the action (begin) and resource (database transaction), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling transaction tools like TransactionCommit or TransactionRollback, which prevents a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing to be in a transaction-aware context), when to avoid it, or how it relates to sibling tools like TransactionCommit or TransactionRollback, leaving usage unclear.
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 full burden but only states the basic action. It doesn't disclose whether this requires specific permissions, if the removal is reversible, what happens to related data, error conditions, or rate limits. 'Remove' implies a mutation, but behavioral details are minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action and immediately clarifies scope (single or multiple targets). Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what happens after removal, error handling, permissions needed, or system impact. The context signals indicate complexity that isn't addressed in the description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all 6 parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying support for single/multiple targets, which is already covered by targetId vs. targetIds in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Remove') and resource ('relationship between records'), specifying it can handle single or multiple targets. It distinguishes from sibling tools like AttachRelation (which creates relationships) and DeleteRecord (which deletes entire records). However, it doesn't explicitly mention what types of records are involved or the system context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when needing to remove relationships rather than delete records or create relationships, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like DeleteRecord or UpdateRecord. No prerequisites, exclusions, or specific scenarios are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool retrieves a record but lacks behavioral details such as error handling (e.g., if ID is invalid), permissions required, or response format. This is a significant gap for a read operation with no 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste—'Get a specific record by ID'—front-loaded and appropriately sized for its purpose. Every word earns its place without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (1 parameter, 100% schema coverage) but lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like what happens on failure or the return structure, which are crucial for agent invocation in a sibling-rich environment.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'recordId' fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying the ID is used for retrieval, matching the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('a specific record'), specifying retrieval by ID. It distinguishes from siblings like FindRecords (general search) and GetRecordsByIds (bulk retrieval), though not explicitly named. However, it lacks full specificity about what 'record' entails in this context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is implied by the phrase 'by ID', suggesting this tool is for retrieving a single known record. No explicit guidance on when to use alternatives like FindOneRecord or GetRecordsByIds is provided, leaving some ambiguity for the agent in sibling-rich 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Get' implies a read operation, the description doesn't specify whether this requires special permissions, returns sensitive information, has rate limits, or provides a complete configuration snapshot. For a system settings tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool and front-loads the essential information. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a parameterless read operation with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It tells the agent what the tool does but lacks details about the return format, permission requirements, or system impact. Given the complexity is low (no parameters, simple retrieval), the description meets basic needs but could better prepare the agent for what to expect.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (though empty). The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist. It correctly focuses on what the tool retrieves rather than how to parameterize it, meeting the baseline expectation for parameterless tools.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does 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 ('Get') and resource ('current database settings and configuration'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like GetRecord or GetRecordsByIds by focusing on system-level settings rather than data records. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential configuration-related siblings (none exist in the list).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or exclusions. Given the sibling tools include various data retrieval operations (GetRecord, FindRecords, etc.), the description should clarify this is for system configuration, not data retrieval.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions filtering capabilities but doesn't disclose important behavioral traits: whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, if there are rate limits, what the return format looks like, or if it supports pagination beyond limit/skip. For a tool with filtering capabilities and no annotations, this is inadequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (one sentence) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word earns its place: 'Find / filter record labels' establishes the action and resource, the parenthetical lists key parameters, and 'Superset of GetLabels' provides important sibling context. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'record labels' are in this system's context, what the return values look like, or important behavioral aspects like permissions or limitations. For a filtering tool with four parameters and no structured output documentation, this leaves significant gaps for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by listing the parameter names in parentheses but doesn't provide additional semantic context beyond what's in the schema descriptions. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Find / filter record labels' with specific capabilities (supports where, limit, skip, orderBy). It distinguishes from a sibling tool ('Superset of GetLabels'), which helps differentiate it. However, it doesn't specify what kind of 'record labels' these are or in what context, leaving some ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear usage context by mentioning it's a 'superset of GetLabels,' implying this tool should be used when more advanced filtering/sorting is needed compared to GetLabels. It doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives beyond GetLabels, but the sibling comparison is helpful guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns a system prompt, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify if it's static content, requires authentication, has rate limits, or details the return format. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by usage guidance. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured for quick understanding.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema), the description is adequate but incomplete. It explains what the tool does and when to use it, but without annotations or output schema, it lacks details on behavioral aspects like return format or constraints. For a read operation, this is minimally viable but has clear gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, and it appropriately doesn't mention any. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as it avoids unnecessary details.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Return the RushDB Query Builder system prompt.' It specifies the verb ('Return') and resource ('RushDB Query Builder system prompt'), making the action explicit. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools, as no other tools appear to retrieve system prompts, but this isn't explicitly stated.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear usage context: 'Use this if your MCP client does not support Prompts API.' This gives a specific scenario for when to use the tool. It doesn't mention alternatives or exclusions, but the guidance is direct and practical for the given condition.
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 states what the tool does but lacks behavioral details such as whether it modifies system files, requires user permissions, provides interactive prompts, or handles errors. For a configuration tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in disclosing operational traits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently communicates the tool's function without redundancy or fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (a configuration action with no parameters) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is minimal but adequate. It states the purpose clearly but does not provide details on behavior, outcomes, or error handling, which could be beneficial for such a tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description does not add parameter details, which is appropriate. Baseline is 4 for zero parameters, as it avoids unnecessary information.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Help the user add') and the target resource ('the RushDB MCP server to their MCP client'). It distinguishes itself from all sibling tools, which are focused on database operations like CreateRecord, FindRecords, etc., making this a unique configuration/installation tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context (when setting up or configuring the MCP client with RushDB), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions. It's clear from the purpose that this is for initial setup, but no specific guidance on prerequisites or timing is given.
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:
Score Badge
Copy to your README.md:
Latest Blog Posts
- Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)By Om-Shree-0709 on .mcpAgent IdentityOAuth 2.1
- Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an InternBy Om-Shree-0709 on .Agent IdentityMCP SecurityOAuth Delegation
- Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)By Om-Shree-0709 on .Agentic AiPrompt InjectionWebAssembly
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/rush-db/RushDB'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server