SailPoint MCP Server

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v1.1.0
Disambiguation5/5
Every tool has a clearly distinct purpose with no ambiguity. Tools are well-organized around specific SailPoint resources (e.g., access profiles, roles, accounts, identities) and actions (create, get, list, enable/disable), making it easy for an agent to select the correct tool for any given task without confusion.
Naming Consistency5/5
Tool names follow a highly consistent verb_noun pattern throughout, such as create_access_profile, get_account, list_identities, and disable_account. This predictable naming convention enhances readability and usability for agents, with no deviations or mixed styles observed.
Tool Count4/5
With 36 tools, the count is slightly high but reasonable for a comprehensive identity governance platform like SailPoint. It covers a wide range of operations across multiple resource types, though it may feel heavy compared to simpler servers; however, each tool appears to serve a specific purpose in the domain.
Completeness5/5
The tool surface provides complete CRUD/lifecycle coverage for SailPoint's domain, including creation, retrieval, listing, and management actions for key resources like identities, accounts, roles, and access profiles. It also includes specialized operations such as search, testing workflows, and handling certifications, with no obvious gaps that would hinder agent workflows.
Average 3/5 across 36 of 36 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions listing for 'review and remediation,' which implies a read-only operation, but does not clarify permissions, rate limits, pagination behavior beyond the schema, or what the output contains. For a list tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient to inform the agent about key behavioral traits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and easy to parse, though it could be more informative. There is no wasted text, making it appropriately concise for its limited content.
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 complexity (a list operation with pagination), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what SOD violations are, the format of returned data, or how review and remediation tie into the tool's functionality. This leaves significant gaps for the agent to understand the tool's role 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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for 'limit' and 'offset' parameters. The description adds no additional semantic information about these parameters, such as default values, constraints, or usage examples. Since the schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description does not compensate but also does not detract.
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 states the tool's purpose as listing SOD violations for review and remediation, which is clear but vague. It specifies the resource (SOD violations) and general intent (review/remediation), but lacks specificity about what SOD violations are or how they differ from other list tools like list_sod_policies. This distinguishes it from non-list siblings but not clearly from other list 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 mentions 'review and remediation' as a purpose, but does not specify scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions, nor does it differentiate from other list tools such as list_sod_policies or search. This leaves the agent without context for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states 'create' implying a write operation, but doesn't mention permissions required, whether the creation is reversible, potential side effects, or any rate limits. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior 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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, clearly stating the core function 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 creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens after creation, what the access profile is used for, or how it relates to other system entities. Given the complexity implied by 6 parameters and the write operation, more context is needed for an agent to use this tool effectively.
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 all 6 parameters. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema, meeting the baseline of 3 for adequate coverage but not providing extra semantic context.
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 states the action ('create') and resource ('access profile'), providing a basic purpose. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_role' or 'create_access_request', leaving ambiguity about what specifically distinguishes an access profile from other entities in this system.
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 like 'create_role' or 'create_access_request'. The description lacks context about prerequisites, appropriate scenarios, or exclusions, offering minimal help for an agent to make informed decisions.
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 implies a read-only operation ('Get detailed information'), but does not specify permissions required, rate limits, error handling, or what 'detailed information' entails (e.g., fields returned). This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently conveys the tool's intent 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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'detailed information' includes, potential errors, or how it differs from sibling tools. For a tool with no structured behavioral data, more context is needed to guide an agent effectively.
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 parameter 'id' clearly documented as 'The entitlement ID.' The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as format examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the parameter documentation adequately.
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 states the tool 'Get detailed information about a specific entitlement,' which clearly indicates a read operation on a specific resource. However, it does not differentiate from siblings like 'list_entitlements' or 'get_account_entitlements,' leaving ambiguity about when to use this versus those 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 such as 'list_entitlements' for multiple entitlements or 'get_account_entitlements' for entitlements tied to an account. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or specific contexts for usage.
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 but offers minimal information. It states 'Create a new access request' which implies a write/mutation operation, but doesn't address critical aspects like: whether this triggers approval workflows, what permissions are required, if it's synchronous or asynchronous, what happens on success/failure, or if there are rate limits. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that communicates the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with clear parameters documented elsewhere, though the brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens after creation (e.g., approval workflow, immediate provisioning), error conditions, required permissions, or return values. Given the complexity of access management and the presence of workflow-related siblings like 'get_workflow' and 'test_workflow', more context about the request lifecycle is needed.
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 parameters are well-documented in the schema itself. The description mentions 'roles, access profiles, or entitlements' which aligns with the 'requestedItems.type' enum values, adding minimal context. However, it doesn't explain parameter relationships, constraints, or provide examples beyond what's already in the structured schema descriptions.
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 ('Create a new access request') and specifies the target resources ('roles, access profiles, or entitlements'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from potential alternatives like 'list_access_requests' or explain how it differs from direct provisioning tools like 'create_access_profile' or 'create_role'.
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. With siblings like 'create_access_profile' and 'create_role' that directly create resources, and 'list_access_requests' that retrieves requests, there's no indication whether this is for formal approval workflows, bulk requests, or specific use cases. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Create a new role' implies a write/mutation operation, but it doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as permissions required, whether the operation is idempotent, what happens on duplicate names, or what the response looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Create a new role') and avoids unnecessary elaboration. Every word earns its place, 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 (a mutation tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like error conditions, response format, or side effects. While the schema covers parameters, the description fails to provide the contextual completeness needed for safe and 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%, meaning all parameters are documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain relationships between parameters like ownerId and accessProfileIds). With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.
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 ('Create') and resource ('a new role'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_role' or 'list_roles' by specifying creation rather than retrieval. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'create_access_profile' or 'create_access_request' beyond the resource type.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage 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., needing ownerId or valid accessProfileIds), when not to use it, or how it relates to sibling tools like 'create_access_profile' or 'create_access_request'. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and parameters 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 'disable' implies a state-changing operation, the description doesn't specify whether this requires special permissions, whether the action is reversible (though 'enable_account' exists), what happens to associated resources, or any rate limits/constraints. It provides minimal behavioral context beyond the basic action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at just four words, front-loading the essential information with zero wasted words. Every element ('Disable', 'an active account') earns its place, making it highly 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?
For a potentially destructive account management tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'disable' means operationally, whether data is preserved, what permissions are required, or what the expected outcome is. Given the complexity of account state changes and the lack of structured metadata, more context is needed.
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 'id' clearly documented as 'The account ID to disable.' The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema already provides, so it 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 action ('Disable') and target ('an active account'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'unlock_account' or explain what 'disable' means versus other account state changes like locking or deleting.
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 'unlock_account' or 'enable_account' (which appears to be its opposite). There's no mention of prerequisites, conditions, or typical use cases for disabling versus other account management operations.
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 ('enable') but doesn't mention required permissions, whether the operation is reversible, potential side effects, or what happens on success/failure. 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 with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loads the core purpose immediately.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on permissions, side effects, success criteria, and doesn't differentiate from similar tools like 'unlock_account'. The context signals indicate a simple parameter structure, but the behavioral aspects are poorly covered.
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%, so the schema already documents the single parameter 'id' as 'The account ID to enable'. The description doesn't add any additional meaning beyond this, such as format examples or constraints, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('enable') and the target ('a disabled account'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from its sibling 'unlock_account' which might serve a similar purpose, 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 like 'unlock_account' or 'disable_account', nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., the account must be disabled). It only states what it does, not when to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states it retrieves information without disclosing behavioral traits like permissions needed, rate limits, error handling, or data format. It's minimal and doesn't compensate for the lack of annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. Every part earns its place by specifying what is retrieved and the scope of 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?
Given the tool's simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'detailed information' includes, how entitlements are structured, or potential response formats, leaving gaps for 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, clearly documenting the 'id' parameter. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying the 'id' is for a specific account, which is already inferred from the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
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 ('Get') and resource ('account'), specifying it retrieves 'detailed information including attributes and entitlements'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_accounts' by focusing on a single account, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_accounts' for multiple accounts or 'get_identity' for related data. It lacks explicit context or exclusions, leaving usage implied rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a list operation but doesn't mention whether it's read-only, if it requires specific permissions, what the output format looks like, or how pagination works (despite parameters for limit/offset). The description is minimal and lacks important behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a straightforward list operation and gets directly to the point without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
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 'entitlements' are in this context, what the return format looks like, or how to interpret the results. The minimal description leaves too many questions unanswered for proper agent usage.
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 three parameters. The description mentions 'assigned to a specific account' which aligns with the accountId parameter but doesn't add any additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate 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 action ('List') and target resource ('entitlements assigned to a specific account'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'list_entitlements' or 'get_entitlement', but the specificity about account assignment provides some implicit 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 'list_entitlements' or 'get_entitlement', nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. It simply states what the tool does without 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 full burden. It implies a read-only operation ('Get') but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what 'items to review' entails. This leaves gaps in understanding how the tool behaves in practice.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. However, the phrase 'including items to review' is somewhat vague and could be clarified to enhance precision without adding unnecessary length.
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 (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It lacks details on output format, error cases, and behavioral context, which are important for a tool that retrieves 'detailed information' in a system with many 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 parameter 'id' fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying the ID is for a certification, which the schema already covers. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'detailed information about a specific certification', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'list_certifications' (which likely returns multiple items). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other 'get_' tools (e.g., 'get_certification_campaign'), leaving some ambiguity about scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a certification ID), contrast with 'list_certifications' for browsing, or specify use cases like reviewing certification details versus campaign metadata.
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 retrieving 'detailed information' and 'statistics', which suggests a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify permissions needed, rate limits, response format, or whether it's idempotent. The description is minimal and lacks critical behavioral context for a tool that likely accesses sensitive certification data.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
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 front-loaded with the core functionality and appropriately sized for a simple retrieval 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 doesn't explain what 'detailed information' or 'statistics' include, nor does it cover error conditions or authentication requirements. For a tool in a security/compliance context (certification campaigns), more contextual detail is needed to guide proper usage.
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 'id' clearly documented as 'The campaign ID'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema fully covers the parameter.
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 ('certification campaign') with the scope of 'detailed information including statistics'. It distinguishes from sibling 'list_certification_campaigns' by focusing on a single campaign rather than listing multiple. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other 'get_' tools that might also retrieve detailed 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?
No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies usage for retrieving detailed campaign data, but it doesn't specify prerequisites, when not to use it, or direct alternatives like 'get_certification' or 'list_certification_campaigns'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states it's a list operation. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination handling (implied by offset/limit parameters), rate limits, authentication requirements, or what constitutes a valid role ID, leaving significant gaps for safe invocation.
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 front-loaded with the core purpose, making it efficient and easy to parse, which is ideal for concise tool definitions.
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 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain return values, error conditions, or behavioral nuances like pagination, leaving the agent under-informed about how to use the tool effectively.
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 parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying role-based filtering, which aligns with the schema. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage without extra 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 ('List') and resource ('identities assigned to a specific role'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'list_identities' or 'get_identity', but the specificity about role-assigned identities provides adequate 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 'list_identities' or 'get_identity'. It lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing a valid role ID, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states it 'gets detailed information' but doesn't specify what that includes (e.g., policy rules, status, metadata), whether it's a read-only operation, error conditions (e.g., invalid ID), or performance aspects like rate limits. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely interacts with sensitive compliance data.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action ('Get detailed information') and specifies the target resource clearly, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of SOD (Segregation of Duties) policies in compliance systems, the description is insufficient. With no annotations and no output schema, it fails to explain what 'detailed information' includes, potential side effects, or error handling. This leaves the agent poorly equipped to use the tool effectively in a real-world scenario.
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 input schema already documents the 'id' parameter fully. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this, such as explaining where to obtain the ID or format constraints. This meets the baseline of 3 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 verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed information about a specific SOD policy'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_sod_policies' or 'get_sod_violations', which would require explicit comparison to earn a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'list_sod_policies' for browsing policies or 'get_sod_violations' for related data, nor does it specify prerequisites such as needing a policy ID from another operation.
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 it's a list operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't mention critical details like whether it's paginated (though schema hints at offset/limit), rate limits, authentication needs, or what the output format looks like (e.g., JSON array of executions). 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 fluff. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly. 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?
Given the complexity (a read operation with pagination parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return values (e.g., what fields are in execution history), error conditions, or behavioral traits like pagination handling. This leaves gaps for the agent to infer usage 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters (workflowId, limit, offset) with clear descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying it's for a 'specific workflow', which aligns with the required workflowId parameter. This meets the baseline of 3 when schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('execution history for a specific workflow'), making the purpose evident. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_workflows' or 'test_workflow', which might handle workflows differently, so it lacks explicit 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. For example, it doesn't mention if this is for historical data only, how it relates to 'list_workflows' or 'test_workflow', or any prerequisites like needing an existing workflow ID. This leaves the agent with minimal context for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'optional filtering' and that access profiles bundle entitlements, but doesn't cover critical aspects like pagination behavior (implied by limit/offset but not explained), rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, or what the output looks like. For a list tool with 5 parameters and no annotations, 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds context about access profiles. Both sentences earn their place by providing essential information without redundancy. It could be slightly more structured by explicitly mentioning pagination or output format, but it's efficiently written.
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 complexity (5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and resource context but lacks details on behavioral traits, usage guidelines, and output expectations. For a list tool with filtering and pagination, more guidance on how results are returned or when to use alternatives would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema fully documents all 5 parameters (limit, offset, filters, sorters, forSubadmin). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema—it mentions 'optional filtering' which aligns with the 'filters' parameter but doesn't provide additional syntax examples or clarify relationships between parameters. 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.
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: 'List access profiles with optional filtering.' It specifies the resource (access profiles) and the action (list with filtering), and mentions that access profiles bundle entitlements for role-based access, which adds useful context. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_access_profile' or 'search', which are also retrieval 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 sibling tools like 'get_access_profile' (for single profile retrieval), 'search' (for broader queries), or 'list_access_requests' (for related resources). Without this context, an agent might struggle to choose the right tool for specific 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 full burden. It mentions 'status filtering' but doesn't disclose key behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, if results are paginated (though 'limit' and 'offset' in schema hint at this), or the format of returned data. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and includes a key feature (status filtering), 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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like safety, permissions, or result format, which are critical for a listing tool with filtering. The high schema coverage helps with parameters, but overall context is lacking for 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 5 parameters. The description adds minimal value by implying filtering capabilities ('with status filtering'), which loosely relates to the 'filters' parameter but doesn't provide additional syntax or usage details beyond what the schema states. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('access requests'), and specifies 'with status filtering' which adds useful scope. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search' or 'search_aggregate' which might also retrieve access requests, so it doesn't reach the highest tier of 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 'search' or 'search_aggregate' from the sibling list. It mentions status filtering but doesn't explain if this is the primary tool for listing access requests or when other tools might be more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states what the tool does at a high level ('List identity profiles') but doesn't describe important behaviors: whether results are paginated (implied by parameters but not stated), what format the output takes, whether there are rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions. For a list operation with 4 parameters, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.
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 appropriately concise - a single sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose. The parenthetical clarification adds useful context without being verbose. It's front-loaded with the main action and resource. There's no wasted text or 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 list operation with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what the output looks like (array of profiles? what fields?), doesn't mention pagination behavior despite offset/limit parameters, and provides no context about typical usage patterns. With no annotations and no output schema, the description should do more to help an agent understand how to use this tool effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain how filters/sorters work, typical limit values, or pagination strategy. With complete schema coverage, the baseline is 3, but the description doesn't enhance understanding beyond the structured data.
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 ('List') and resource ('identity profiles'), with additional clarifying context about what identity profiles are ('configurations for how identities are created/managed'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_identity_profile' (singular) by indicating it returns multiple items. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other list tools like 'list_identities' or 'list_access_profiles' beyond the resource type.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage 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 use 'list_identity_profiles' versus 'get_identity_profile' (singular retrieval), 'list_identities' (actual identities vs. profiles), or 'search' (more flexible querying). There's no context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or limitations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a list operation with filtering, but doesn't describe pagination behavior (implied by limit/offset parameters), rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or return format. For a tool with 5 parameters and no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves in practice.
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 appropriately concise with two sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds helpful context about what roles represent. There's no wasted verbiage, though it could be slightly more structured by front-loading more usage guidance.
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 5 parameters with full schema coverage but no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate basic purpose but lacks critical context. It doesn't explain what the output looks like (list format, fields returned), pagination strategy, or error handling. For a list tool in a complex identity management context with many siblings, more completeness would be expected.
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 all 5 parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'optional filtering' (which aligns with the 'filters' parameter) but doesn't provide additional context about parameter interactions, default behaviors, or examples beyond what's in the schema descriptions. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('roles'), and adds that it includes 'optional filtering'. It distinguishes roles as 'bundle access profiles and entitlements for business functions', which provides helpful context about what roles are. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_role' or 'search', which would be needed for 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 mentions 'optional filtering' but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_role' (for a specific role), 'search' (for broader queries), or 'list_access_profiles' (for related resources). There's no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions, leaving the agent with insufficient 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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool lists sources but lacks details on permissions required, rate limits, pagination behavior (beyond schema hints), or response format. This is a significant gap for a tool with potential operational impacts.
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 purpose ('List connected sources') and adds clarifying context without redundancy. Every word 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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like authentication needs, error handling, or result format, which are crucial for a list operation with filtering and pagination parameters. This leaves gaps in understanding tool 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 parameters like limit, offset, filters, and sorters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, resulting in the baseline score of 3 for adequate but not enhanced 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 verb ('List') and resource ('connected sources'), with additional context that sources are 'identity repositories' and 'systems SailPoint connects to.' This provides a specific purpose, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_source' or other list tools, keeping it at a 4 rather than a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_source' (for single source details) or 'search' (for broader queries), nor does it specify prerequisites or contexts for usage, leaving the agent without 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 action ('List') but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, what the output format looks like, if there are rate limits, or authentication requirements. For a list tool with zero 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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It front-loads the core purpose ('List workflows') and adds clarifying context ('automation scripts in the tenant') without unnecessary elaboration. 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?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that likely returns a list of workflows. It doesn't explain what information is included in the results (e.g., names, IDs, statuses) or how pagination works with 'limit' and 'offset'. For a list operation with structured parameters, more context is needed to guide 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 already documents both parameters ('limit' and 'offset') with clear descriptions. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as default values or usage examples. 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.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('workflows (automation scripts)'), with the parenthetical clarifying what workflows are. It specifies scope ('in the tenant'), which is useful. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling 'get_workflow' or 'get_workflow_executions', missing an opportunity for 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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_workflow' (for a single workflow) or 'search' (for filtered queries). The description implies it lists all workflows, but without explicit comparisons or exclusions, the agent must infer usage from context 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 mentions 'query syntax' but doesn't explain key behaviors like pagination (hinted at by 'searchAfter' in schema but not described), rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or what the results look like (no output schema). This is inadequate for a search tool with 6 parameters.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Perform a search') and key resources. There is no wasted verbiage or redundancy, 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 tool's complexity (6 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., pagination, limits), usage context versus siblings, and result format. While the schema covers parameters well, the description fails to compensate for missing annotations and output schema, leaving significant gaps for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all 6 parameters with descriptions and enums. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'query syntax' generically, but doesn't provide additional syntax details or examples beyond what's in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Perform a search') and the target resources ('across identities, accounts, access profiles, roles, or entitlements'), with a specific mention of query syntax. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_aggregate' or the various 'list_' tools, which likely have different scopes or functionalities.
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 'search_aggregate' or the 'list_' tools (e.g., 'list_identities'). It lacks explicit when/when-not instructions or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the generic search capability.
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 'aggregate queries for analytics' but doesn't describe what the tool returns, whether it's read-only or mutative, performance characteristics, error conditions, or authentication requirements. For a tool with 5 parameters and no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
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 wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core functionality. Every element ('perform aggregate queries', 'search indices', 'analytics', 'counts, groupings') 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?
Given 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (aggregation results format), doesn't address behavioral aspects like read/write nature or error handling, and provides minimal context for a complex analytics tool. The 100% schema coverage helps with parameters but doesn't compensate for other gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema - it mentions 'aggregate queries' and 'analytics' which aligns with the aggregation parameters, but provides no additional syntax, format, or usage details for the parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool performs 'aggregate queries on search indices for analytics' with specific examples like 'counts, groupings, etc.' This provides a specific verb ('perform aggregate queries') and resource ('search indices') with purpose clarification. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'search' tool, which appears to be a related search function.
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 mentions 'analytics' but doesn't specify use cases, prerequisites, or contrast with the sibling 'search' tool. The agent receives no explicit when/when-not instructions or alternative tool references.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It implies a non-destructive test operation but doesn't disclose if it triggers actual workflow execution, requires specific permissions, has side effects, or returns detailed results. For a tool with potential execution implications, this is inadequate, scoring a 2.
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 purpose without waste. Every word contributes directly to understanding the tool's function, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick comprehension.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of testing workflows, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., execution impact, error handling), output format, or usage context, leaving significant gaps for an agent to operate effectively in a server with many 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%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('workflowId' and 'input'). The description adds no extra meaning beyond implying 'input' is for testing, which is redundant with the schema's 'Input data for the workflow test.' Baseline 3 is appropriate as 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 ('Test') and resource ('a workflow') with the specific context 'with sample input.' It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'get_workflow' or 'get_workflow_executions' by focusing on testing rather than retrieval or monitoring. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings, such as 'search' or 'create_access_profile,' keeping it at a 4 instead of a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing workflow), exclusions (e.g., not for production workflows), or direct comparisons to siblings like 'get_workflow_executions' for viewing past tests. This lack of contextual direction leaves the agent to infer usage, scoring a 2.
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 action but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this requires admin permissions, if it's reversible, what happens on success/failure, or any rate limits. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at four words, front-loaded with the core action, and contains no wasted words. It efficiently communicates the essential purpose 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 this is a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and multiple sibling tools for account management, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'unlock' entails operationally, how it differs from similar tools, or what to expect as a result, leaving critical gaps for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'id' documented as 'The account ID to unlock'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as format examples or constraints. 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 action ('unlock') and resource ('a locked account'), providing specific purpose. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'enable_account' or 'disable_account', which appear related to account status management, 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 like 'enable_account' or 'disable_account', nor does it mention prerequisites such as account being in a locked state. It merely restates the purpose without 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 full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves information, implying it's a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify permissions needed, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'detailed information' entails beyond entitlements. 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 core purpose without unnecessary words. Every part ('Get detailed information', 'about a specific access profile', 'including entitlements') contributes directly to understanding the tool's function, making it appropriately sized 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 low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on usage guidelines, behavioral traits, and output specifics. Without annotations or an output schema, the agent might struggle with how to interpret results or handle errors, making this incomplete for optimal 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%, with the single parameter 'id' clearly documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this—it doesn't explain where to find the ID, its format, or examples. Since the schema fully covers the parameter, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.
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 ('access profile') with specific detail about what information is retrieved ('detailed information... including entitlements'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_access_profiles' by focusing on a single profile rather than listing multiple. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other get_* tools that might also retrieve detailed 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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an ID), when not to use it (e.g., for listing multiple profiles), or refer to sibling tools like 'list_access_profiles' for broader queries. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and context 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 that the tool retrieves 'detailed information' but does not specify whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or handles errors. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap, warranting a score of 2.
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 purpose ('Get detailed information about a specific identity by ID') and adds useful detail ('including attributes, accounts, and access'). There is no wasted wording, making it highly concise and well-structured, earning a score of 5.
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 complexity (a read operation with one parameter) and the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It explains what the tool does and what information it returns, but lacks details on behavioral aspects like error handling or authentication needs. This makes it complete enough for basic use but with clear gaps, resulting in a score of 3.
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 'id' parameter documented as 'The identity ID.' The description adds value by clarifying that this ID retrieves 'detailed information... including attributes, accounts, and access,' which provides context beyond the schema. However, since the schema already covers the parameter adequately, the baseline is 3, and the description's additional context maintains this score.
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 detailed information about a specific identity by ID, including attributes, accounts, and access.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('identity'), and scope ('by ID'), but does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like 'get_identity_profile' or 'list_identities', which is why it scores 4 instead of 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention sibling tools like 'list_identities' for listing multiple identities or 'get_identity_profile' for profile-specific details, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions for usage. This lack of contextual direction results in a score of 2.
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 this is a 'Get' operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't disclose critical details like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'detailed information' entails (e.g., format, pagination). For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap in behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get detailed information about an identity profile') and adds a specific detail ('including attribute mappings'). There is no wasted verbiage, and it's appropriately sized for a simple lookup tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (single required parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the purpose but lacks usage guidelines and behavioral details. Without an output schema, it doesn't explain return values, which is a gap. It's complete enough for basic use but leaves the agent to guess about behavior and 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?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'id' clearly documented as 'The identity profile ID'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as ID format or examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description doesn't compensate further.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'detailed information about an identity profile', specifying it includes 'attribute mappings'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_identity' (general identity info) and 'list_identity_profiles' (list vs. detailed get). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings, so it's not a perfect 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an ID), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'get_identity' or 'list_identity_profiles'. This leaves the agent to infer usage from context 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. It states this is a read operation ('Get'), which is clear, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what happens if the role ID is invalid. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the purpose ('Get detailed information about a specific role') and adds specifics ('including access profiles and memberships'). There is no wasted text, and it's appropriately sized for a simple tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on behavioral aspects and usage context. Without annotations or output schema, more guidance on what 'detailed information' entails would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'id' parameter clearly documented as 'The role ID'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, as it doesn't explain the format or source of the ID. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'detailed information about a specific role', specifying it includes 'access profiles and memberships'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_roles' (which lists multiple roles) by focusing on a single role. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'get_role_assigned_identities', which might overlap in scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. It doesn't mention when to choose 'get_role' over 'list_roles' for bulk data or 'get_role_assigned_identities' for specific membership details. The description implies usage for detailed info but lacks context on prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions retrieving 'detailed information' and 'connection status,' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't specify permissions required, rate limits, error handling, or the format of the returned data. For a tool with no 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 core purpose without unnecessary words. Every part ('Get detailed information,' 'specific source,' 'connection status') contributes directly to understanding the tool's function, making it appropriately sized 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 low complexity (1 required parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic action and resource but lacks details on usage context, behavioral traits, and output expectations. For a simple read operation, it meets the minimum viable threshold but has clear gaps in completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'id' parameter clearly documented as 'The source ID.' The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as examples or context for obtaining the ID. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.
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 ('Get') and resource ('detailed information about a specific source'), including the scope of information ('connection status'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'list_sources' by focusing on a single source rather than listing multiple. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other 'get_' tools that retrieve different resource types.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a source ID), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'list_sources' for browsing or other 'get_' tools for different resources. Usage is implied by the action but not explicitly defined.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Get' implies a read operation, it doesn't specify permissions, rate limits, error conditions, or response format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get detailed information about a specific workflow') and adds clarifying details ('including steps and triggers') without unnecessary elaboration. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (single parameter, no nested objects) and high schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations or output schema, it should ideally provide more behavioral context (e.g., what 'detailed information' entails) to be fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'id' documented as 'The workflow ID'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline for high coverage without extra 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 verb ('Get') and resource ('workflow') with specific details ('detailed information including steps and triggers'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_workflows' or 'get_workflow_executions', which would require a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_workflows' for browsing or 'get_workflow_executions' for runtime data. It lacks explicit when/when-not statements or prerequisite context, leaving usage inference to the agent.
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 filtering and return fields but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, pagination behavior (beyond schema hints), or whether it's read-only. This is inadequate for a list tool with potential operational 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 concise and front-loaded, with two sentences that efficiently convey the core functionality and return data. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it easy to scan and understand.
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 (list operation with filtering and pagination), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers what the tool does and returns but lacks behavioral context and usage guidance, leaving gaps for an AI agent to operate effectively.
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 four parameters. The description adds minimal value by mentioning 'filtering options,' which aligns with the 'filters' parameter but doesn't provide additional syntax or usage context beyond what the schema already states.
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: 'List accounts across all sources with filtering options.' It specifies the verb ('List'), resource ('accounts'), and scope ('across all sources'), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_account' or 'list_identities' beyond the resource type.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage 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 mentions filtering options but doesn't specify scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions, such as when to prefer 'get_account' for single accounts or 'search' for more complex queries.
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 'List' implies a read-only operation, the description doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, what permissions are needed, whether results are paginated (though parameters suggest it), or what the return format looks like. For a tool with 4 parameters and no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a listing tool and front-loads the core functionality. Every word earns its place by specifying both the action and additional context about what's included in the listing.
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 (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate but has clear gaps. It explains what the tool does but lacks behavioral context (like authentication needs or return format) and usage guidance relative to siblings. The high schema coverage helps, but the description doesn't fully compensate for the missing annotations and output schema.
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 thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain how 'filters' or 'sorters' relate to 'certification campaigns'). With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't need to given the schema's completeness.
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 ('List') and resource ('certification campaigns'), specifying what the tool does. It adds useful context about what information is included ('with status and progress'), which helps distinguish it from a simple listing. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_certifications' or 'get_certification_campaign', which would be needed for 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. There are multiple sibling tools related to certifications (e.g., 'list_certifications', 'get_certification_campaign'), but the description doesn't explain how this tool differs from them or when it should be preferred. No context about prerequisites or exclusions is mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states it lists 'active' reviews, implying a filter, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination handling (though schema hints at it), rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'active' means operationally. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the basic action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('List active certification reviews') and adds clarifying context ('Certifications are access review campaigns') without waste. Every word earns its place, making it appropriately sized 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 no annotations, no output schema, and 3 parameters with full schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. It clarifies the resource type but lacks details on return values, error handling, or operational constraints. For a list tool with structured inputs, it meets basic needs but leaves gaps in behavioral 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 parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond implying filtering via 'active', which loosely relates to the 'filters' parameter but without syntax or format details. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('active certification reviews'), with additional clarifying context that certifications are access review campaigns. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_certification' (singular) and 'list_certification_campaigns' (campaigns vs reviews), though not explicitly. Purpose is specific but sibling differentiation is implied rather than explicit.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_certification' (for a single review) or 'list_certification_campaigns' (for campaigns). The description lacks explicit when/when-not instructions or prerequisite context, offering only a basic functional statement without usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states it's a list operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't disclose pagination details (beyond schema parameters), rate limits, authentication requirements, or what 'across sources' entails. For a tool with 4 parameters and no annotations, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, front-loaded with the core action ('List entitlements'), zero waste. Efficiently conveys purpose without unnecessary elaboration.
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 list tool with 4 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It clarifies the resource type and scope but lacks details on output format, pagination behavior, or error handling. Given the complexity and absence of annotations, it should provide more context to be fully helpful.
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 parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying filtering/sorting via 'across sources', but doesn't explain syntax or usage. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('entitlements'), with additional clarification that entitlements refer to 'permissions/privileges' and scope 'across sources'. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_entitlement' or 'get_account_entitlements', but the scope distinction is implied.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_entitlement' (for a single entitlement) or 'get_account_entitlements' (for account-specific entitlements). The description mentions 'across sources', which hints at breadth, but lacks clear when/when-not instructions or named 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool lists policies but doesn't describe what the output looks like (e.g., format, fields), whether it's paginated (though schema hints at it), or any rate limits or permissions required. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool 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 a single, efficient sentence: 'List Separation of Duties (SOD) policies for compliance monitoring.' It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, with no wasted words. Every part of the sentence contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (a list operation with pagination/filtering), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It identifies the resource but lacks details on output format, error handling, or usage context. The schema covers parameters well, but overall completeness is limited for effective agent use without additional inference.
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 'limit', 'offset', and 'filters' parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain filter syntax or default values). With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.
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: 'List Separation of Duties (SOD) policies for compliance monitoring.' It specifies the verb ('List') and resource ('SOD policies'), and distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_sod_policy' (singular) and 'list_sod_violations' (different resource). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other list tools (e.g., 'list_access_profiles') beyond the resource 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 when to use 'list_sod_policies' over 'get_sod_policy' (singular retrieval) or 'list_sod_violations' (related but different data), nor does it specify prerequisites or context for compliance monitoring. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and sibling list 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 mentions optional filtering and the return fields (identity ID, name, email, lifecycle state, manager information), but lacks details on permissions required, rate limits, pagination behavior beyond the schema, or error handling. 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 front-loads the core purpose and includes key details like filtering and return fields. There is no wasted language, making it appropriately concise and well-structured for its purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and return fields, but lacks behavioral context like permissions or error handling, and doesn't fully compensate for the absence of an output schema or annotations.
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 four parameters (limit, offset, filters, sorters). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as examples of filter expressions or sorters, but the high coverage justifies a baseline score of 3.
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 identities') and resource ('in SailPoint'), specifying what the tool does. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_identity' (singular) by indicating it returns multiple identities, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other list tools like 'list_accounts' or 'list_roles' beyond the resource type.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage through 'with optional filtering,' suggesting it's for retrieving multiple identities with potential constraints. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like 'search' or 'get_identity,' nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites for use.
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:

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

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

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

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