Orchestrator MCP Server

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation3/5
The tool set has clear clusters for distinct domains like API key management, AI services, and Railway operations, but there is significant overlap within some clusters. For example, wolfram_calculate, wolfram_convert, and wolfram_query have overlapping purposes that could cause confusion, and fast_ai, openrouter_chat, and think all involve AI interactions with unclear boundaries. Descriptions help differentiate some tools, but misselection is possible due to this overlap.
Naming Consistency4/5
Most tools follow a consistent snake_case naming pattern with clear verb_noun structures, such as api_keys_inject, railway_redeploy, and mem0_search. However, there are minor deviations like consensus, health, and think, which use single words without a noun, slightly breaking the pattern. Overall, the naming is mostly predictable and readable across the set.
Tool Count3/5
With 28 tools, the count is borderline high for a single server, as it covers multiple broad domains like cloud orchestration, AI services, and data processing. This could feel heavy and overwhelming for agents, but it is reasonable given the server's apparent scope as an 'Orchestrator' integrating various services. A more focused scoping might reduce the count for better usability.
Completeness4/5
The tool surface covers a wide range of operations across its domains, such as CRUD-like actions for API keys and Railway services, and diverse AI and data processing capabilities. Minor gaps exist, like no explicit update or delete tools for some resources (e.g., GitHub files or Mem0 entries), but agents can likely work around these with available tools. The set supports core workflows without major dead ends.
Average 3.1/5 across 28 of 28 tools scored.
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.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

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

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

How is the quality score calculated?

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

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

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

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

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'inject,' implying a write operation, but fails to detail critical aspects like authentication requirements, potential side effects (e.g., overwriting existing keys), rate limits, or error handling. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy to parse quickly for an AI agent.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a write operation ('inject') with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't cover what happens on success or failure, the format of injected data, or how it interacts with Railway services, leaving the agent with incomplete 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.
Parameters3/5
Does 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 ('serviceName' and 'targets'). The description adds minimal value beyond this, as it doesn't explain parameter interactions or provide examples beyond what's in the schema. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate but not enhanced parameter understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('inject') and the resources involved ('specific service API key from the sheet to Railway'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from its sibling 'api_keys_inject_all', which appears to be a bulk version, leaving some ambiguity about when to choose one over the other.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'api_keys_inject_all' or other sibling tools. It lacks context about prerequisites, such as whether the API key must already exist in the sheet, or any exclusions for its use, 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool injects API keys, implying a write/mutation operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether this is destructive (e.g., overwrites existing keys), rate limits, or what happens on failure. The description is minimal and lacks critical operational context for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and scope ('Inject ALL ready API keys from the sheet to Railway services'). It wastes no words and is appropriately sized for the tool's apparent complexity, earning its place without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool appears to perform a mutation (injecting API keys) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover what constitutes 'ready' keys, the source 'sheet', potential side effects, error handling, or return values. For a mutation tool with zero structured coverage, this leaves significant gaps for an agent to use it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'targets' parameter documented as 'Railway services to inject to (default: cloud-orchestrator)'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining what 'ready API keys' are or the injection mechanism. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('inject') and target resources ('ALL ready API keys from the sheet to Railway services'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from sibling 'api_keys_inject' by specifying 'ALL ready API keys', though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other siblings like 'api_keys_ready' or 'api_keys_missing'. The verb+resource combination is specific but sibling differentiation is partial.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., what makes API keys 'ready'), exclusions, or compare it to siblings like 'api_keys_inject' (which might handle selective injection). Usage context is implied but not explicit, leaving the agent to infer based on 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 states 'Read' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't cover critical aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling (e.g., for non-existent files), or response format. This leaves significant gaps for agent understanding.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loads the essential information without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., file content, metadata, or errors), nor does it cover behavioral aspects like authentication or limitations. This leaves the agent with incomplete context for reliable use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('repo' and 'path') adequately. The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as format examples or constraints, but doesn't need to given the comprehensive schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Read') and resource ('a file from a GitHub repository'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from potential sibling tools like 'github_repos' or 'scrape_url', which might also interact with GitHub content in different ways.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'github_repos' (which might list files) or 'scrape_url' (which could fetch web content), nor does it specify prerequisites like repository access or authentication needs.
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 'List GitHub repositories', which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't specify any behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination, or what data is returned (e.g., repo names, details). This is a significant gap 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with just three words ('List GitHub repositories'), which is front-loaded and wastes no space. For a simple tool with no parameters, this brevity is efficient and appropriate, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks context on behavior (e.g., authentication, scope), usage guidelines, and output details, which are crucial for an agent to invoke it correctly. With no annotations to compensate, the description should provide more completeness for effective tool selection.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description adds no parameter information, which is appropriate since there are no parameters to explain. This aligns with the baseline expectation for zero-parameter tools, where minimal description suffices.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List GitHub repositories' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('GitHub repositories'), making the basic purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from potential siblings (like 'github_file') or specify scope (e.g., user vs. organization repos), leaving it somewhat vague. It avoids tautology by not just 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 Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, such as whether it lists public vs. private repos or requires authentication. Given the sibling tools include 'github_file', there's no differentiation, leaving the agent to guess based on tool names 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. While 'Store' implies a write operation, it doesn't address important aspects like whether storage is permanent or temporary, what happens on duplicate content, authentication requirements, rate limits, or error conditions. The description is too minimal for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, focused sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It's perfectly front-loaded and wastes no space on redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a write operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens after storage (success indicators, return values, error handling) or provide context about the memory system's behavior. The agent would need to guess about important operational aspects.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 100% description coverage, so all parameters are documented in the structured schema. The tool description doesn't add any additional semantic context about the parameters beyond what's already in the schema descriptions, which is adequate but not additive.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Store') and resource ('information in Mem0 long-term memory'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from its sibling 'mem0_search', which would be the natural alternative for retrieving stored information.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'mem0_search' or other storage mechanisms. There's no mention of prerequisites, use cases, or limitations that would help an agent decide when this is the appropriate tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic action ('Search') without revealing any behavioral traits: no information about authentication needs, rate limits, what constitutes 'long-term memory', whether results are paginated, or what format the results take. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at just four words, with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core action and immediately communicates the essential purpose. Every word earns its place in this minimal description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a search operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what 'Mem0 long-term memory' contains, what format results return, whether authentication is required, or any error conditions. For a tool that presumably returns search results, the lack of output information is a significant gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents all three parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain search syntax, how the query is processed, what 'userId' controls, or how 'limit' affects performance. With complete schema coverage, the baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Search') and resource ('Mem0 long-term memory'), providing a specific purpose. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from potential sibling memory tools (like 'mem0_add'), which would require a 5. The description is unambiguous about what the tool does.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of when this search is appropriate, what kind of memory it accesses, or how it differs from other search tools in the sibling list (like 'web_search'). The agent receives no contextual usage 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool queries for entity relationships but doesn't describe what the query returns (e.g., results format, error handling), any limitations (e.g., rate limits, authentication needs), or side effects. This is inadequate for a query 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is 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 is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of querying a knowledge graph, the lack of annotations and output schema, and the description's minimal detail, this is incomplete. The description doesn't explain what the tool returns, how to interpret results, or any behavioral traits, which is insufficient for effective tool invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('query' and 'labels') with descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or usage context for the parameters, which aligns with the baseline score of 3 when schema coverage is high.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose as 'Query Neo4j knowledge graph for entity relationships,' which includes a specific verb ('Query') and resource ('Neo4j knowledge graph'). However, it doesn't distinguish this from potential sibling tools that might also query databases or graphs, though none of the listed siblings appear to be direct alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or specific contexts for usage, leaving the agent to infer based on the tool name and purpose 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 the action ('trigger redeployment') but lacks critical details: whether this requires specific permissions, if it's destructive to current deployments, what happens during redeployment (e.g., downtime), rate limits, or expected 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is 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 and front-loaded, with every word contributing to understanding the core functionality.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool ('trigger redeployment') with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to address behavioral aspects like safety, permissions, or response expectations, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to use it correctly in context with sibling tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'service' fully documented in the schema (including enum values). The description doesn't add any parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the significance of the service choices or redeployment implications per service, 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.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('trigger redeployment') and resource ('Railway service'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'railway_status' or 'railway_set_variable' beyond the redeployment action, 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 Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'railway_status' for checking deployment state or 'railway_set_variable' for configuration changes. There's no mention of prerequisites, consequences, or appropriate contexts for redeployment.
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 ('Set') but doesn't mention whether this requires specific permissions, if changes are immediate or require redeployment, potential side effects, or error handling. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to understand quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like permissions, side effects, or response format, which are critical for safe and effective use. More context is needed to compensate for the lack of structured data.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters (service, key, value). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema handles parameter documentation effectively.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Set') and resource ('environment variable on a Railway service'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like 'railway_redeploy' or 'railway_status', but the specificity of setting environment variables is adequate for clarity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as whether it's for configuration changes, debugging, or deployment preparation. The description lacks context about prerequisites, timing, or comparisons to other Railway tools, leaving usage decisions 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 full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'secure E2B sandbox' which hints at isolation, but doesn't describe execution limits, timeout behavior, error handling, output format, or security constraints. For a code execution tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral traits undocumented.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loads the core functionality. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a code execution tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens during execution, what gets returned, error conditions, or sandbox limitations. The agent lacks critical context to use this tool effectively despite its apparent simplicity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents the single 'code' parameter. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the parameter documentation work.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Execute') and resource ('JavaScript code') with the execution context ('in secure E2B sandbox'). It distinguishes from sibling 'run_python' by specifying JavaScript, but doesn't differentiate from other code execution tools that might exist. The purpose is specific but could be more distinctive.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'run_python' or other execution methods. There's no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or typical use cases. The agent must 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 mentions 'scrape and extract content' but lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, potential destructive effects (e.g., if scraping triggers server-side actions), or output behavior. This is inadequate for a tool that interacts with external URLs.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and every part earns its place, 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.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of scraping URLs (which involves external interactions) and the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not cover error handling, content limitations, or return formats, leaving significant gaps for the agent to understand the tool's behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents the parameters ('url' and 'formats'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or constraints on URL types. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('scrape and extract content') and resource ('from any URL via Firecrawl'), making it immediately understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'web_search' or 'github_file', which might have overlapping functionality for URL-based content retrieval.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention sibling tools such as 'web_search' (which might search web content) or 'github_file' (which might extract from GitHub URLs), leaving 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 mentions 'recent errors' but doesn't specify what 'recent' means (time window), whether results are paginated, authentication requirements, rate limits, or what format the errors are returned in. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to properly use this tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that communicates the core purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool with one parameter and gets straight to the point.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and incomplete behavioral context, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what format errors are returned in, what 'recent' means, or provide enough context for an agent to understand the full scope of this tool's behavior and output.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents the single 'limit' parameter. The description doesn't add any additional parameter context beyond what's in the schema, which meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and resource 'recent errors captured by Sentry', making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling 'sentry_stats', which appears to be a related tool, so it doesn't achieve full sibling distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'sentry_stats' or other error-related tools. It simply states what the tool does without context about appropriate use cases or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but doesn't mention any behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, or what the output format looks like. For a tool that performs external API calls, 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose with zero waste. It's appropriately sized for a simple calculation tool and front-loads the essential information without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and sibling tools that appear related (wolfram_query, wolfram_convert), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what distinguishes this tool from its siblings, what the output looks like, or any behavioral constraints. The description should provide more context given the tool's external API dependency and related alternatives.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents the single 'expr' parameter with examples. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the parameter documentation work.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('calculate') and resource ('math expression using Wolfram Alpha'), providing specific purpose. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling 'wolfram_query' or 'wolfram_convert', which appear related but have distinct functions. The description is clear but lacks sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'wolfram_query' or 'wolfram_convert'. It mentions 'math expression' but doesn't specify what types of calculations are appropriate or when other Wolfram tools might be better suited. No explicit when/when-not or alternative recommendations are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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. While 'Convert between units' implies a read-only transformation operation, it doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, or what happens with invalid unit combinations. The description is too minimal for a tool that interacts with an external API.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise - a single sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. There's zero waste or unnecessary elaboration, making it perfectly front-loaded and efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that this is an API integration tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (converted values, error formats), doesn't mention rate limits or authentication requirements, and provides no examples of successful usage patterns.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters ('from' and 'to') well-documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage without additional value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Convert between units') and the resource/service ('using Wolfram Alpha'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from its sibling 'wolfram_calculate' or 'wolfram_query', which likely have different purposes within the same Wolfram Alpha integration.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of when this tool is appropriate versus other Wolfram tools like 'wolfram_calculate' or 'wolfram_query', nor any context about when unit conversion might be needed versus other approaches.
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 mentions what the tool returns ('Shows active, missing, and high-impact services'), but lacks details on behavioral traits such as permissions needed, rate limits, error handling, or whether it's a read-only operation. For a tool with zero 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded, consisting of two clear sentences that directly explain the tool's function. There's no wasted text, and it efficiently conveys the key information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is adequate but minimal. It explains what the tool does but lacks details on output format, error conditions, or integration context. For a simple read operation, it's passable but could be more informative.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, so it meets the baseline. It appropriately focuses on the tool's purpose without unnecessary parameter details.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get summary of all API keys status from the configuration sheet.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('API keys status'), and source ('configuration sheet'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'api_keys_missing' or 'api_keys_ready', which appear to be related API key tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to choose this over sibling tools like 'api_keys_missing' or 'api_keys_ready', nor does it specify any prerequisites or exclusions. The context is implied but not explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, response format, or whether it returns real-time or cached data. This is a significant gap 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is 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 any wasted words. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the deployment status includes (e.g., success, failure, pending), how results are structured, or any behavioral aspects, making it inadequate for full understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
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 given the schema's completeness, earning a baseline score above 3 for this context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'deployment status of all Railway services', making the purpose specific and understandable. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like 'railway_redeploy' or 'railway_set_variable', but the focus on status retrieval is evident.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual cues for usage, leaving it unclear if this is for monitoring, debugging, or other scenarios.
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 the 'secure E2B sandbox' which hints at isolation, but doesn't detail execution limits, error handling, output format, or security constraints. For a code execution tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral aspects unspecified.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with two sentences: one stating the core functionality and another suggesting use cases. It's front-loaded with the primary purpose. However, the second sentence could be more specific to earn a perfect score.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of executing arbitrary Python code in a sandbox, the description is insufficient. With no annotations and no output schema, it lacks details on execution behavior, safety, return values, or error conditions. The tool's purpose is clear, but critical contextual information is missing for safe and effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents both parameters (code and timeout). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, such as code syntax examples or timeout implications. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Execute Python code in secure E2B sandbox.' It specifies the verb (execute) and resource (Python code) with the context of a secure sandbox environment. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'run_javascript', which performs similar execution for a different language.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides implied usage guidance with 'Use for data analysis, calculations, testing,' suggesting appropriate contexts. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'run_javascript' or 'wolfram_calculate', nor does it mention any 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 it mentions what the tool does (query Wolfram Alpha), it lacks critical behavioral details such as rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, response format, or whether it's a read-only operation. The description is functional but insufficient 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded, consisting of two clear sentences. The first sentence establishes the core functionality, and the second provides usage guidance. There's no wasted verbiage, though it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating domain examples from the general instruction.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose but misses important contextual details like response format, error conditions, rate limits, and differentiation from sibling tools. For a computational query tool with no structured behavioral data, this description leaves significant gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'query' well-documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema (e.g., it doesn't elaborate on query formatting or examples). Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: querying Wolfram Alpha for computational questions. It specifies the domain (math, science, calculations, conversions, real-time data) and provides a general use case. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'wolfram_calculate' or 'wolfram_convert', which appear to be more specialized versions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides implied usage guidance by stating 'Use for any computational question', which suggests it's a general-purpose tool for Wolfram Alpha queries. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when to use this versus the more specialized sibling tools (wolfram_calculate, wolfram_convert), nor does it provide any exclusions or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states it 'lists' services, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify format (e.g., list, table, JSON), pagination, sorting, or error handling. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves beyond the basic action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence that directly states the tool's function without any fluff or redundant information. It's front-loaded with the core action and target, 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.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally complete for a simple listing operation. However, it lacks details on output format, error cases, or dependencies, which would be helpful for an agent to use it effectively. It meets the bare minimum but doesn't provide rich context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (empty schema is fully described). The description adds no parameter information, which is appropriate since there are none. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as the description doesn't need to compensate for any schema gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('List') and target ('services that are still missing API keys'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'api_keys_ready' or 'api_keys_summary', but the specificity of 'missing API keys' provides inherent distinction. This is not a tautology of the tool name 'api_keys_missing'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'api_keys_ready' (which might list services with keys) or 'api_keys_summary' (which could provide aggregated stats). There's no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on tool names 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 the action ('List') but doesn't describe traits like whether it requires authentication, rate limits, pagination, or the format of returned data. For a 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is 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 any wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse and understand immediately.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on behavior, usage context, or output format. For a list operation, more guidance on data structure or authentication would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter details, and it doesn't introduce any confusion. A baseline of 4 is appropriate as it avoids redundancy while remaining clear.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('all available AI models on OpenRouter'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'openrouter_chat' or 'consensus' which might also involve models, so it doesn't reach the highest score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication), compare it to siblings like 'openrouter_chat' for model interactions, or specify use cases (e.g., model selection). This leaves the agent with minimal context for decision-making.
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 retrieves statistics but does not specify whether it's read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, or details the return format. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior and constraints.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks details on behavior, output, or usage context. For a stats-retrieval tool, more information on what statistics are returned would enhance completeness, but the absence of parameters keeps it from being severely inadequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description does not add param details, but since there are no parameters, this is acceptable. A baseline of 4 is appropriate as the schema fully covers the lack of parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose as 'Get error tracking statistics from Sentry,' which specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('error tracking statistics'), and source ('Sentry'). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'sentry_errors,' which might have overlapping functionality, preventing 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 Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'sentry_errors' or other monitoring tools in the sibling list. It lacks context on prerequisites, exclusions, or specific use cases, leaving the agent to infer usage based on 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions synthesizing consensus but doesn't explain how the synthesis works (e.g., voting, averaging, reasoning), what the output format is, whether there are rate limits, or if authentication is required. For a tool that queries multiple external AI services, this lack of operational details is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise and front-loaded: two sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and usage guideline. Every word earns its place, with no redundant or vague phrasing. It efficiently communicates the core functionality without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of querying multiple AI models and synthesizing results, the description is incomplete. There's no output schema, and the description doesn't explain return values or behavioral traits. With no annotations and a non-trivial operation, the description should provide more context about how consensus is achieved, error handling, or response structure to be adequately complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters ('query' and 'detailed') well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema. According to the rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even with no param info in the description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get multiple AI perspectives (Claude, GPT, Gemini) and synthesize consensus.' It specifies the verb ('get', 'synthesize'), resource ('AI perspectives'), and scope ('multiple' across three named models). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'think' or 'openrouter_chat', which might offer similar AI analysis capabilities.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for when to use it: 'Use for important decisions.' This gives practical guidance on appropriate scenarios. However, it doesn't specify when NOT to use it or mention alternatives among sibling tools (e.g., 'think' for single-model reasoning or 'openrouter_chat' for other AI models), leaving some ambiguity in 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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the performance characteristic (~100ms) which is valuable context, but doesn't address other important behavioral aspects like rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, or what kind of responses to expect. For an AI tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with just two sentences that each serve a clear purpose: the first states what the tool does, the second provides usage guidance. There's zero wasted language, and the most important information (fast AI responses) is front-loaded appropriately.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For an AI response tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. While it mentions speed and use case, it doesn't describe what format responses come in, whether there are content limitations, authentication requirements, or error conditions. The agent would need to guess about important behavioral aspects of this tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 100% description coverage with the single parameter 'content' described as 'Quick question.' The tool description doesn't add any additional parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema. 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.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Ultra-fast AI response via Groq (~100ms)' specifies the action (AI response), technology (Groq), and performance characteristic. 'Use for quick questions' further clarifies the intended use case. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'openrouter_chat' or 'think' that might also provide AI responses.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear usage context with 'Use for quick questions,' indicating this tool is optimized for speed over complexity. This gives practical guidance on when to choose this tool. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the many sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it mentions querying models and API access, it doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication requirements, cost implications, error handling, or response format. For a tool that interacts with external AI models, 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence and efficiently expands with model examples in the second. Every sentence earns its place by clarifying scope and accessibility, with zero wasted 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.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of querying multiple AI models via an external API, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on authentication, costs, rate limits, error handling, and response structure, which are crucial for effective tool use. The description does not compensate for these gaps, making it inadequate for the tool's context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('content' and 'model') with descriptions and defaults. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as examples of model IDs or prompt formatting tips. Baseline 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.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Query ANY AI model via OpenRouter') and resource ('AI models'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'openrouter_models' (which likely lists models) and 'fast_ai' (which might be a simpler interface). It explicitly mentions the scope ('Access Claude, GPT, Llama, Mistral, and 100+ models through single API'), making the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for querying AI models via OpenRouter but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'fast_ai' or 'consensus'. It mentions the single API access point, which suggests a broad use case, but lacks specific guidance on prerequisites, limitations, or comparative scenarios with sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'real-time' and 'via Perplexity,' which adds some context about the search engine and timeliness. However, it lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, response format, or potential costs/limitations, which are critical for a web search tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise and front-loaded, consisting of just two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose and usage without any wasted words. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (web search with real-time focus), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the core purpose and usage context but lacks details on behavioral traits, return values, or error handling, leaving gaps that could hinder effective agent use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage for the single parameter 'query,' so the schema already documents it adequately. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as query formatting tips or examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function as 'Real-time web search via Perplexity' with the purpose 'for current events, recent info, live data.' This specifies the verb (search), resource (web), and scope (real-time/recent), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'think' or 'wolfram_query' that might also retrieve information.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context on when to use this tool: 'for current events, recent info, live data.' This gives practical guidance, but it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings (e.g., 'scrape_url' for static content or 'think' for internal reasoning).
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 what the tool does but fails to describe key traits such as whether it requires authentication, its rate limits, what 'health status' entails (e.g., uptime, errors), or the response format. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand operational behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence that front-loads the core purpose without any wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a zero-parameter tool, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema), the description is adequate but incomplete. It states what the tool does but lacks context on behavioral aspects like response format or system dependencies. Without annotations or output schema, more detail would help an agent use it effectively, though it meets minimum viability.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately does not discuss parameters, which is efficient. A baseline of 4 is applied since it avoids unnecessary details while matching the schema's completeness.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('health status of cloud orchestrator and all connected services'), making it immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from all sibling tools, which focus on API keys, code execution, searches, and other operations rather than health monitoring.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context (monitoring system health) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks guidance on prerequisites, frequency, or scenarios where it might be preferred over other tools like 'railway_status' or 'sentry_stats' for related checks.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Auto-routes to best AI capabilities' which adds useful context about how the tool works internally. However, it doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, or what format the reasoning output takes.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with just two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose and usage. Every word earns its place - the first sentence defines the tool's function, and the second provides clear usage guidance. No wasted words or redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a reasoning tool with 2 parameters, 100% schema coverage, but no annotations and no output schema, the description is adequate but has gaps. It explains what the tool does and when to use it, but doesn't address behavioral aspects like whether this is a safe operation, what the output format will be, or any limitations. The description compensates somewhat with the 'auto-routes' insight.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters. The description doesn't add any additional meaning about parameters beyond what's in the schema. It mentions 'deep reasoning' and 'complex analysis' which relates to the query parameter's purpose, but provides no specific guidance on parameter usage or formatting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose as 'Deep reasoning using cognitive orchestrator' with specific use cases like 'complex analysis, multi-step reasoning, research questions.' It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on cognitive processing rather than API key management, code execution, or data queries. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with similar reasoning tools like 'consensus' or 'fast_ai'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear usage context with 'Use for complex analysis, multi-step reasoning, research questions,' giving specific scenarios when this tool is appropriate. It implies this is for more complex tasks than basic queries. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternative tools for simpler reasoning tasks.
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 describes a read-only listing operation but does not cover aspects like response format (e.g., list structure, data fields), potential errors, or performance considerations (e.g., rate limits). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the key information ('List services...') without any redundant or unnecessary details. Every word contributes to clarifying the tool's purpose, making it optimally concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description adequately covers the basic purpose. However, it lacks details on output (e.g., what data is returned, format) and behavioral context (e.g., how results are filtered or sorted), which would be helpful for an agent to use it effectively, especially without annotations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description adds no parameter information, which is acceptable here as there are no parameters to explain. A baseline of 4 is appropriate since no compensation is needed for missing parameter details.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('List services') and resource ('that have API keys filled in and are ready to inject to Railway'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'api_keys_missing' (which would list services without keys) and 'api_keys_inject' (which performs an action rather than listing). The verb 'List' is precise and the scope is well-defined.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context by specifying 'ready to inject to Railway,' suggesting this tool is for checking preparedness before injection operations. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like 'api_keys_summary' or 'api_keys_missing,' nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites, leaving some ambiguity.
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:

[![orchestrator-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/sabriotcore-code/orchestrator-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/sabriotcore-code/orchestrator-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![orchestrator-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/sabriotcore-code/orchestrator-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/sabriotcore-code/orchestrator-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

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

MCP directory API

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

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/sabriotcore-code/orchestrator-mcp'

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