SourceSync.ai MCP Server

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have distinct purposes, but there is some overlap between ingest tools (e.g., ingestFile, ingestText, ingestUrls, ingestWebsite, ingestSitemap) that could cause confusion about which to use for specific content types. However, descriptions clarify their specific use cases, and other tools like search and connection management are clearly differentiated.
Naming Consistency5/5
Tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern throughout, such as createConnection, deleteDocuments, fetchUrlContent, and hybridSearch. This predictability makes it easy for agents to understand and select tools based on their actions and targets.
Tool Count3/5
With 25 tools, the count is on the higher side for a document ingestion and search server, which may feel heavy and potentially overwhelming. While it covers many operations, it borders on being too many, as some tools could be consolidated or simplified without losing functionality.
Completeness5/5
The tool set provides comprehensive coverage for the domain, including CRUD operations for namespaces and connections, various ingestion methods for different content types, search capabilities (semantic and hybrid), document management (fetch, update, delete, resync), and API validation. No obvious gaps are present, enabling full lifecycle management.
Average 2.8/5 across 25 of 25 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under ISC License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

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

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

How is the quality score calculated?

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

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

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

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

Tool Scores

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 an update operation, implying mutation, but doesn't cover critical aspects like required permissions, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or error handling. For a complex mutation tool with 12 parameters, 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that is front-loaded with the core action. There's no wasted verbiage, making it appropriately concise for a basic statement of function.
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 (12 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the scope of updates, parameter interactions, or expected outcomes. For a mutation tool with rich configuration options, more detail 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.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the 12 parameters are documented in the schema. The description only mentions 'configuration parameters' generically, without explaining what these parameters are (e.g., fileStorageConfig, embeddingModelConfig) or their purposes. This fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool 'Updates an existing namespace with the provided configuration parameters,' which is a clear verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'updateConnection' or 'updateDocuments,' nor does it specify what aspects of a namespace can be updated beyond 'configuration parameters.' This makes the purpose somewhat vague in context.
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 namespace), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'createNamespace' or 'getNamespace.' 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool updates metadata but doesn't explain critical behaviors: whether this is a destructive operation (e.g., overwrites or merges metadata), what permissions are required, how errors are handled, or the response format. For a mutation tool with complex parameters, this lack of transparency 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.
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 action ('Updates metadata for documents'). There's no wasted verbiage, making it easy to parse quickly. However, it could be more structured by explicitly mentioning key parameters or outcomes, but it earns high marks for brevity.
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 (5 parameters with nested objects, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the update mechanism (e.g., partial vs. full updates), error conditions, or what happens to unmatched documents. For a tool that modifies data based on filters, more context is needed to ensure correct usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the 5 parameters are documented in the schema. The description only vaguely references 'specified filter criteria' and 'metadata,' without explaining what parameters like 'namespaceId,' 'tenantId,' or the nested 'data' and 'filterConfig' objects do. It fails to compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions, leaving key semantics unclear.
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 'Updates metadata for documents that match the specified filter criteria,' which provides a clear verb ('Updates') and resource ('metadata for documents'). However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'updateConnection' or 'updateNamespace,' nor does it clarify what 'metadata' entails beyond the schema. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity about the scope of updates compared to 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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, such as needing existing documents or connections, or compare it to sibling tools like 'resyncDocuments' or 'deleteDocuments.' Without explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions, the agent must infer usage from the name and schema alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action is 'permanently deletes,' implying irreversibility and destructive behavior, which is critical. However, it lacks details on permissions required, rate limits, error handling, or what happens to associated data, leaving significant gaps for a destructive operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence that front-loads the key action ('permanently deletes') and resource ('documents'), with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the core purpose without redundancy or unnecessary elaboration, 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 (destructive operation with 4 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema) and lack of annotations, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain parameter usage, return values, error conditions, or safety considerations, making it incomplete for effective agent invocation in this context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description only vaguely references 'filter criteria' without explaining any of the 4 parameters (e.g., namespaceId, documentIds, tenantId, filterConfig) or their purposes. It fails to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation, leaving parameters semantically unclear.
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 ('permanently deletes') and resource ('documents'), specifying it operates based on filter criteria. It distinguishes from siblings like 'updateDocuments' or 'fetchDocuments' by emphasizing deletion. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'deleteNamespace' or other deletion tools, keeping it at 4 rather than 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 'updateDocuments' for modifications or 'fetchDocuments' for retrieval. It mentions filter criteria but doesn't specify prerequisites, exclusions, or recommend other tools for related tasks, leaving the agent with minimal context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions pagination and including specific properties, which is helpful, but fails to address critical aspects such as whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or what happens with large result sets. For a tool with 6 parameters and complex filtering, 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that covers the core functionality without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, though it could be more structured (e.g., separating key features). Every phrase earns its place by mentioning fetching, filtering, pagination, and property inclusion.
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 with nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return format, error handling, or how parameters interact (e.g., 'namespaceId' vs. 'filterConfig'). For a data retrieval tool with rich filtering options, more context is needed to use it effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the 6 parameters are documented in the schema. The description only vaguely mentions 'filter criteria', 'pagination', and 'including specific document properties', which maps loosely to some parameters but doesn't explain their purpose, relationships (e.g., how 'documentIds' in the root differs from in 'filterConfig'), or usage. It adds minimal value beyond the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('fetches documents') and resource ('from the namespace'), and mentions filtering capabilities. However, it doesn't specifically differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'semanticSearch' or 'hybridSearch' that might also retrieve documents, nor does it explain how it differs from 'listNamespaces' which might be related. The purpose is clear but lacks sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'semanticSearch', 'hybridSearch', or 'listNamespaces'. It mentions filtering and pagination but doesn't specify use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. This leaves the agent with insufficient context to choose appropriately among sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the requirement for hybridConfig and the balancing of search types, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, output format, or potential side effects. For a search tool with 8 parameters and no 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with two sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose. There's no wasted text, though it could be slightly more informative without losing efficiency. The structure is clear but brief.
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 (8 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values, error handling, or the interplay between parameters like searchType and hybridConfig. For a tool with rich input schema and no structured support, 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.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the 8 parameters are documented in the schema. The description only mentions 'hybridConfig with weights for both search types,' which partially explains one parameter (hybridConfig) but ignores the other 7 (e.g., namespaceId, query, topK). It adds minimal value beyond the bare schema, failing to compensate for the low coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Performs a combined keyword and semantic search, balancing between exact matches and semantic similarity.' It specifies the verb ('performs'), resource ('search'), and method ('combined keyword and semantic'), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'semanticSearch' tool, which appears to be a related alternative.
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 minimal guidance: it mentions that hybridConfig with weights is required, but offers no explicit advice on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'semanticSearch' or other search-related tools in the sibling list. There's no context on use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'ingests' which implies a write operation, but doesn't specify whether this is idempotent, what permissions are required, whether it's asynchronous, what happens on failure, or what the expected output looks like. The mention of 'optional metadata and chunk configuration' is helpful but insufficient for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately concise with two sentences that efficiently convey the core functionality and key features. It's front-loaded with the main purpose and follows with supporting details, though it could be slightly more structured by separating required vs optional aspects.
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 3 parameters (including complex nested objects), 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'ingests' means operationally, what the expected outcome is, error conditions, or provide sufficient parameter guidance given the schema complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage and 3 parameters (including nested objects), the description provides minimal help. It mentions 'optional metadata and chunk configuration' which hints at some parameters, but doesn't explain the required namespaceId, tenantId, or the structure of ingestConfig. The schema shows complex nested objects that aren't addressed in the description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('ingests') and resource ('raw text content into the namespace'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from some siblings like ingestFile or ingestUrls by specifying text content, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from ingestConnector or ingestWebsite which might also handle text.
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 ingestFile, ingestUrls, or ingestWebsite. It mentions optional metadata and chunk configuration but doesn't explain when these features are needed or what the default behavior is when they're omitted.
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 scraping and metadata support but doesn't describe what 'ingest' actually does (e.g., stores content, processes it, where it goes), whether it's asynchronous, what permissions are needed, or what happens on failure. The description is too vague for a mutation operation.
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 capability details. There's no wasted verbiage, though it could be more informative given the tool's complexity.
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 complex ingestion tool with 3 parameters (including nested objects), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what ingestion means in this context, where content goes, what the expected outcome is, or how to interpret results. The agent would struggle to use this tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage for 3 parameters (namespaceId, ingestConfig, tenantId), the description doesn't compensate at all. It mentions 'scraping options and metadata' which partially maps to ingestConfig properties, but doesn't explain namespaceId, tenantId, or the complex nested structure of ingestConfig with its required urls array and optional chunkConfig.
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: 'Ingests content from a list of URLs' specifies the verb (ingest) and resource (content from URLs). It distinguishes from some siblings like ingestFile or ingestText by specifying URL sources, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from fetchUrlContent or ingestWebsite which also handle URLs.
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 fetchUrlContent, ingestWebsite, or ingestSitemap. It mentions 'Supports scraping options and metadata' which hints at capabilities but doesn't define appropriate use cases or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the semantic nature of the search but doesn't describe important behavioral aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, performance characteristics, error conditions, or what the search results look like. For a search tool with 7 parameters and no annotations, this is inadequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that efficiently communicates the core function. It's appropriately sized for a basic tool description, though it could benefit from additional context given the complexity of the 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 tool's complexity (7 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the search results format, error handling, or how the various parameters interact. For a semantic search tool with multiple configuration options, more context is needed for effective agent use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage for 7 parameters, the description fails to compensate by explaining any parameters. It mentions 'namespace' which relates to 'namespaceId' and 'query' which is required, but doesn't explain what these parameters mean, their formats, or how they affect the search behavior. The description adds minimal value beyond what's implied by the tool name.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool performs semantic search across a namespace based on meaning rather than exact keyword matches. It specifies the verb ('performs semantic search') and resource ('across the namespace'), but doesn't distinguish it from the sibling 'hybridSearch' tool, which appears to be a related alternative.
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 'hybridSearch' (which is a sibling tool). It mentions semantic search but doesn't explain when semantic search is preferable to other search methods or what specific use cases it addresses.
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 the action is 'permanent', which is crucial for a destructive operation, but lacks details on permissions required, error conditions (e.g., if namespace doesn't exist), side effects, or response format. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the key information ('permanently deletes') and is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive mutation tool with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on parameters, error handling, prerequisites, and behavioral context, making it incomplete for safe and effective use by an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate but fails to do so. It mentions 'namespaceId' implicitly but doesn't explain its format or purpose. It omits 'tenantId' entirely, leaving both parameters undocumented. This is inadequate for a tool with two parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('permanently deletes') and resource ('a namespace by its ID'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'deleteDocuments' or 'revokeConnection', which also perform deletion operations on different resources.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., whether the namespace must be empty), contrast with similar tools like 'deleteDocuments' or 'revokeConnection', or specify conditions under which deletion is 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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'fetches' implies a read operation, it doesn't describe what happens on failure, rate limits, authentication requirements (despite apiKey and tenantId parameters), response format, or whether the operation is idempotent. The mention of 'parsed text file URLs' adds some context but leaves most behavioral aspects unspecified.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise - just two sentences that directly address the tool's purpose and a specific use case. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 3 parameters (including authentication parameters), 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the authentication mechanism, response format, error conditions, or how the 'parsed text' aspect relates to the parameters. The description leaves too many open questions for effective tool selection and invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage for all 3 parameters, the description provides no information about what 'url', 'apiKey', or 'tenantId' parameters mean or how they should be used. The description mentions 'URL' generally but doesn't explain format expectations, and completely ignores the authentication parameters that appear in the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('fetches') and resource ('content of a URL'), and adds useful context about being 'particularly useful for fetching parsed text file URLs.' However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'fetchDocuments' or 'ingestUrls' which might have overlapping functionality.
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 minimal guidance - only mentioning it's 'particularly useful for fetching parsed text file URLs.' It doesn't explain when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'fetchDocuments' or 'ingestUrls' from the sibling list, nor does it mention prerequisites, authentication needs, or any exclusion criteria.
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 mentions retrieval without disclosing behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or response format. It lacks details on whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, or how it behaves with invalid IDs.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. Every part earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.
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 (3 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover parameter meanings, behavioral context, or return values, leaving significant gaps for an agent to use it 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.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage for its 3 parameters, and the description adds no semantic information beyond implying 'connectionId' is required. It doesn't explain what 'namespaceId' or 'tenantId' are, their relationships, or when they're needed, failing to compensate for the low 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 ('Retrieves details') and resource ('for a specific connection by its ID'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'listConnections' or 'getNamespace', which would require explicit comparison for a score 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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'listConnections' for browsing or 'getNamespace' for namespace details. The description only states what it does, not when it's appropriate, leaving the agent to infer usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions checking status, which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what the status response includes. This leaves significant gaps 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 unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, with no wasted 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 complexity (status checking with 3 parameters), no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on parameters, return values, and behavioral context, making it insufficient for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It doesn't add any meaning beyond the schema, failing to explain parameters like 'namespaceId', 'ingestJobRunId', or 'tenantId'. With 3 parameters and no schema descriptions, this is inadequate.
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 ('Checks') and resource ('status of a previously submitted ingestion job'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'getNamespace' or 'getConnection', which also retrieve status/information, so it misses full sibling distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides minimal guidance by implying usage after job submission ('previously submitted'), but it doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like checking job status through other means or tools. No explicit when-not or alternative recommendations are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves data, implying a read-only operation, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or response format. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to invoke it safely and effectively.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a retrieval tool with 2 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what data is returned, how errors are handled, or the operational context (e.g., authentication needs), leaving the agent with critical gaps in understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage for its two parameters (namespaceId and tenantId), and the tool description adds no information about their meaning, format, or relationships. For example, it doesn't clarify if tenantId is required or optional, or how these IDs are structured, failing to compensate for the schema's lack of 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 action ('Retrieves') and resource ('a specific namespace by its ID'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'listNamespaces' or 'getConnection', which would require explicit comparison to achieve 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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'listNamespaces' for browsing or 'getConnection' for related resources. The description implies usage for fetching a single namespace by ID but offers no context about prerequisites, error conditions, or typical workflows.
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 'automatic parsing' as a behavioral trait, but lacks critical details: it doesn't specify if this is a read/write operation (though 'ingests' implies mutation), what permissions are needed, whether it's idempotent, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. 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 extremely concise with two sentences that are front-loaded and waste no words. Every part ('ingests a file into the namespace', 'supports various file formats with automatic parsing') adds value without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, mutation operation, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, parameter meanings, output format, error handling, and differentiation from siblings. For a file ingestion tool with rich input schema, this leaves significant gaps for the agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is low at 20%, with only 'chunkConfig' having a description. The tool description adds no parameter-specific information beyond implying file format support, failing to compensate for the coverage gap. It doesn't explain what 'namespaceId', 'file', 'metadata', or 'tenantId' mean or how they affect ingestion.
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 ('ingests') and resource ('a file into the namespace'), specifying it supports various formats with automatic parsing. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling ingestion tools like ingestText, ingestUrls, ingestWebsite, ingestSitemap, or ingestConnector, which all perform ingestion but for different input 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. With multiple sibling ingestion tools (e.g., ingestText for text, ingestUrls for URLs), the agent is left to infer usage based on the 'file' parameter, but no explicit when/when-not rules or prerequisites are 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'ingests content' and 'supports path filtering and link limits,' which implies a write operation with configurable scoping, but it doesn't cover critical aspects like permissions required, rate limits, whether the ingestion is asynchronous or immediate, error handling, or what happens to existing content. For a tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, 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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: it states the core purpose in the first clause and adds feature details in the second. Every sentence earns its place by conveying essential information without waste, making it 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 (3 parameters with nested objects, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, full parameter meanings, and expected outcomes. For an ingestion tool that likely involves data processing and storage, more context is needed to guide effective use, such as prerequisites, side effects, or response format.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description adds minimal semantics: it implies 'url' is for the sitemap.xml, 'maxLinks' sets a limit, and 'includePaths'/'excludePaths' filter paths. However, it doesn't explain 'namespaceId', 'tenantId', 'metadata', or 'chunkConfig', leaving 3 out of 3 top-level parameters partially or fully undocumented. The description compensates poorly for the low 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 tool's purpose: 'Ingests content from a website using its sitemap.xml.' It specifies the verb ('ingests'), resource ('content from a website'), and mechanism ('using its sitemap.xml'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'ingestWebsite' or 'ingestUrls', which likely have overlapping functionality, so it doesn't reach the highest score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions 'Supports path filtering and link limits,' which are features but not usage contexts. With siblings like 'ingestWebsite' and 'ingestUrls' that might handle similar tasks, the lack of explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use advice leaves the agent guessing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool 'crawls and ingests' which implies a write/mutation operation, but doesn't specify what 'ingests' means in practice (e.g., where content goes, what permissions are needed, whether it's idempotent). It also doesn't mention rate limits, error handling, or what the tool returns. For a complex ingestion 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 extremely concise - just two sentences that efficiently convey the core functionality. Every word earns its place: 'Crawls and ingests' (action), 'content from a website' (resource), 'recursively' (method), 'Supports depth control and path filtering' (key features). No wasted words or redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (recursive web crawling with ingestion), zero annotation coverage, 0% schema description coverage, no output schema, and multiple sibling ingestion tools, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'ingests' means operationally, where the content goes, what permissions are required, how errors are handled, or how this differs from other ingestion tools. For such a complex tool, this minimal description leaves too many questions unanswered.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage and 3 parameters (including complex nested objects), the description provides minimal parameter information. It mentions 'depth control and path filtering' which hints at 'maxDepth', 'includePaths', and 'excludePaths', but doesn't explain the 10+ other parameters like 'namespaceId', 'tenantId', 'chunkConfig', or 'metadata'. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema 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 tool's purpose: 'Crawls and ingests content from a website recursively.' It specifies the action (crawl and ingest) and resource (website content), and mentions key features like depth control and path filtering. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'ingestUrls' or 'fetchUrlContent', which prevents a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'ingestUrls', 'ingestSitemap', and 'fetchUrlContent', there's no indication of when this recursive crawling approach is preferred over other ingestion methods. The description lacks any context about prerequisites, constraints, or comparative use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It mentions 'revokes access' and 'removing integration', implying a destructive operation, but lacks details on permissions needed, whether it's reversible, rate limits, or what happens to associated data. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, clearly stating the tool's 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?
For a mutation tool with 3 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, parameter meanings, and expected outcomes, making it inadequate for safe and effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'specific connection' which hints at 'connectionId', but doesn't explain the purpose of 'namespaceId' or 'tenantId', or clarify that only 'connectionId' is required. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('revokes access') and resource ('specific connection'), explaining it removes integration with an external service. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'deleteNamespace' or 'updateConnection' which might also affect connections.
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 'deleteNamespace' or 'updateConnection', nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. It states what the tool does but not when it's appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool generates an authorization URL for user redirection and document selection, which adds useful context about the interactive flow. However, it doesn't cover critical aspects like required permissions, whether the update is reversible, rate limits, or what happens to existing settings not mentioned. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is moderately concise but could be more front-loaded. It starts with the core function, then details parameters and usage, but includes some redundancy (e.g., repeating 'if you want to update' scenarios). Most sentences earn their place, but it could be streamlined for better clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a 5-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and some parameter details but misses behavioral traits, full parameter explanations, and output information. For a tool that involves user authorization and document selection, more context is needed to be fully helpful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for all 5 parameters. It only explains 'connector' (as a SourceSync connector enum) and 'clientRedirectUrl' (optional, for custom redirect URL), mentioning that the latter gives an authorization URL. It ignores 'namespaceId', 'connectionId', 'name', and 'tenantId', leaving most parameters undocumented. The description adds some value but fails to adequately cover the parameter semantics.
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 'updates a connection to a specific source' and mentions updating to a different source, clientRedirectUrl, or document selection. It specifies the verb 'updates' and resource 'connection', but doesn't explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like 'updateNamespace' or 'updateDocuments' beyond the connection focus.
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 scenarios ('if you want to update the connection to a different source or if you want to update the clientRedirectUrl or if you want to pick a different or new set of documents'), but doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like 'createConnection' or 'revokeConnection'. It provides context but lacks clear exclusions or comparisons.
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 'Creates' implies a write operation, the description doesn't mention permissions needed, whether the operation is idempotent, what happens on failure, or what the response looks like. For a complex creation tool with 6 parameters, this is inadequate behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is efficiently structured in a single sentence that states the action and lists required components. Every word serves a purpose, though it could benefit from slightly more context about what a namespace represents in this system.
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 complex creation tool with 6 parameters, nested objects, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what a namespace is, what happens after creation, error conditions, or how this relates to sibling tools. The agent would struggle to use this tool effectively without additional 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 description lists the four required parameter categories (name, file storage, vector storage, embedding model), which provides some semantic context beyond the 0% schema description coverage. However, it doesn't explain the optional parameters (webScraperConfig, tenantId) or provide any details about what values are expected for each configuration type.
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 ('Creates') and resource ('a new namespace'), and specifies the required configuration components (name, file storage, vector storage, embedding model). However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'createConnection' or explain what a namespace represents in this context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage 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 'createConnection' or 'updateNamespace'. It mentions required parameters but doesn't explain prerequisites, use cases, or when this tool is appropriate versus other namespace-related tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that 'Ids are already in the backlog when picked through the picker' and references an authorization flow, hinting at workflow dependencies. However, it fails to disclose critical traits such as whether this is a read or write operation, potential side effects (e.g., data mutation), error handling, rate limits, or authentication needs, leaving significant gaps for an ingestion tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is reasonably concise with three sentences that focus on core functionality and workflow notes. It avoids unnecessary fluff and is front-loaded with the main purpose. However, the second sentence about 'No need to provide the document ids' could be integrated more smoothly, and some details feel slightly repetitive, but overall it's efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (3 parameters with nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It explains the 'what' (ingesting backlog/failed documents) but lacks details on parameters, return values, error conditions, and behavioral traits. For a tool that likely involves data processing and system interactions, this leaves too many unknowns for reliable agent use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 0%, meaning parameters like 'namespaceId', 'ingestConfig', and 'tenantId' are undocumented in the schema. The description adds no information about these parameters—it doesn't explain what they mean, their required values, or how they relate to the ingestion process. This leaves the agent with insufficient guidance to use the tool effectively, failing to compensate for the schema gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool 'ingests all documents in the connector that are in backlog or failed status,' specifying the verb (ingests), resource (documents), and scope (backlog/failed status). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'ingestFile' or 'ingestUrls,' which handle different document sources, leaving some ambiguity about when to choose this over 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 Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage by mentioning that it handles documents 'in backlog or failed status' and references an authorization flow, suggesting it's for retrying failed ingestions or processing queued items. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'ingestFile' or 'resyncDocuments,' and doesn't state prerequisites or exclusions clearly, relying on implied context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but reveals minimal behavioral traits. It states it's a list operation (implies read-only) and mentions optional filtering, but doesn't disclose pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or what 'current namespace' means contextually. For a tool with 3 parameters and no 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 front-loads the core purpose ('Lists all connections for the current namespace') and adds qualifying detail ('optionally filtered by connector type'). There's no wasted verbiage or structural issues.
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 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It adequately states the purpose but fails to provide necessary context about parameter usage, behavioral expectations, or return values. For a list operation with filtering parameters, more guidance is needed to help an agent invoke it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate but adds minimal parameter semantics. It mentions optional filtering by 'connector type' (hinting at the connector parameter), but doesn't explain namespaceId or tenantId parameters, their relationships, or what 'current namespace' implies versus explicit namespaceId. The description doesn't clarify if parameters are required or how they interact.
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 ('Lists') and resource ('connections for the current namespace'), with optional filtering by connector type. It distinguishes from siblings like getConnection (singular) and createConnection/updateConnection/revokeConnection (mutations), but doesn't explicitly contrast with other list tools like listNamespaces.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when needing to see all connections, optionally filtered by type, but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives like getConnection (for a specific connection) or when not to use it. It mentions filtering capability but doesn't compare to other search/filter tools in the sibling set.
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 'reprocesses' and 'updating,' implying a mutation operation, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits like whether this is destructive, requires specific permissions, has rate limits, or what 'reprocess' entails (e.g., re-indexing, re-parsing). The description adds minimal 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 appropriately sized with two concise sentences that are front-loaded: the first states the core action, and the second adds context. Every sentence earns its place by clarifying purpose and usage without redundancy or fluff.
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 (4 parameters with nested objects, no annotations, no output schema), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the mutation behavior, parameter interactions, or expected outcomes. For a tool that likely involves significant processing, more detail on effects, prerequisites, and limitations is needed to be complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'filter criteria' but doesn't explain the four parameters (namespaceId, documentIds, tenantId, filterConfig) or their relationships (e.g., filterConfig is required). No details are provided on how filtering works or what 'reprocess' means for the parameters. The description adds little semantic value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with 'Reprocesses documents that match the specified filter criteria,' providing a specific verb ('reprocesses') and resource ('documents'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'updateDocuments' by focusing on reprocessing rather than content updates. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'ingest' tools that also process documents.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides some usage context with 'Useful for updating after schema changes,' which implies when to use it. However, it doesn't specify when NOT to use it or mention alternatives among siblings like 'updateDocuments' for content changes or 'ingest' tools for initial processing. The guidance is helpful but incomplete.
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 discloses that the tool initiates an OAuth-like flow (authorization URL, user redirection, document selection), which is valuable behavioral context. However, it lacks details on permissions required, rate limits, error handling, or what happens after user authorization (e.g., automatic ingestion). For a tool with no annotations, 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized with three sentences that are front-loaded: the first states the purpose, the second explains key parameters, and the third describes the authorization flow. There's minimal waste, though the third sentence could be more concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (OAuth-like flow, 5 parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It misses details on parameter semantics for three parameters, behavioral aspects like error handling, and the return value (only mentions an authorization URL). For a tool with this complexity, it should do more to guide the 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains two parameters: 'connector' (as a SourceSync enum) and 'clientRedirectUrl' (optional, for custom redirect). However, it doesn't cover the other three parameters (namespaceId, name, tenantId), leaving them undocumented. The description adds some value but doesn't fully compensate for the coverage gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Creates a new connection to a specific source.' It specifies the verb ('creates') and resource ('connection'), and mentions the authorization flow and document ingestion outcome. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'updateConnection' or 'listConnections' beyond the creation aspect.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context by mentioning the authorization URL and user document selection, suggesting it's for setting up data ingestion from external sources. It doesn't provide explicit when-to-use guidance versus alternatives like 'ingestConnector' or 'ingestFile', nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It mentions the tool lists namespaces 'available for the current API key and optional tenant ID', hinting at authentication and scoping, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, pagination, or response format. This is inadequate for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose ('Lists all namespaces') and includes essential context about API key and tenant ID, 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.
Completeness2/5
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 low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., read-only nature, error handling), parameter specifics, and return values, making it insufficient for an agent to fully understand tool usage in this 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 description adds some meaning by noting 'tenantId' is optional and used for scoping namespaces, which the schema (0% coverage) does not specify. However, with only one parameter and low schema coverage, the description compensates partially but doesn't fully explain the parameter's purpose or format beyond basic optionality.
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 ('Lists') and resource ('all namespaces'), specifying scope ('available for the current API key and optional tenant ID'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'getNamespace' (singular) and 'createNamespace' (write operation), but doesn't explicitly contrast with other list operations like 'listConnections'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when needing to enumerate namespaces, mentioning the optional 'tenantId' parameter. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'getNamespace' for specific namespace details or 'createNamespace' for creating new ones, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the validation method (list namespaces attempt) and conditional return behavior (list if successful), which are useful behavioral traits. However, it doesn't mention error handling, rate limits, authentication requirements beyond the API key, or what 'successful' entails beyond returning a list.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences front-load the purpose and outcome with zero waste. Every word earns its place: first sentence defines the action and method, second specifies the return value conditionally. No fluff or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (no parameters, simple validation purpose) and lack of annotations/output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It explains what the tool does and what it returns, though it could benefit from more behavioral context like error scenarios. For a validation tool, this covers the essentials.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (though schema is empty). The description doesn't need to compensate for missing parameter info. It appropriately focuses on the tool's purpose without redundant parameter explanations, earning a baseline 4 for zero-parameter tools.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('validates the API key') and method ('by attempting to list namespaces'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'listNamespaces' which just lists namespaces without validation. It explicitly mentions the resource involved (API key) and the outcome (returns list of namespaces if successful).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context: to verify API key validity, likely as an initial setup or diagnostic step. It doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent to infer this is for validation rather than operational tasks like data ingestion or search.
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:

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

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

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

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