Scoring Engine MCP Server

Official

by scoringengine

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

JavaScript

Remote

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation2/5
Several tool pairs perform overlapping actions (e.g., admin_update_port vs service_update_port, overview_get_data vs overview_get_detailed_data, team_get_services vs team_get_services_status) with only permission scope or detail level differing. This makes it difficult for an agent to know which tool to invoke without deep context.
Naming Consistency4/5
Tool names consistently follow a snake_case resource_action pattern with clear prefixes (admin_, service_, team_, etc.). Minor deviations like inject_get (singular) vs injects_list (plural) are understandable and do not cause confusion.
Tool Count1/5
With 53 tools, the surface is overwhelming and exceeds the 'extreme mismatch' threshold. While the domain is complex, the sheer number of admin update variants and overlapping read/update tools makes it impractical for an agent to efficiently select the right tool.
Completeness4/5
The tool set provides broad coverage of the scoring engine's core domains: notifications, scoreboard, overview, teams, services, flags, injects, and extensive admin controls. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no mark-notification-read, no team/service CRUD beyond updates), but these are workaroundable.
Average 3.7/5 across 53 of 53 tools scored. Lowest: 2.9/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is failing
Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.
If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.
MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

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

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

How is the quality score calculated?

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

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

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

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

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose side effects and permissions. It mentions 'White team only' (a permission hint) but does not state what happens when the hostname changes, whether it is reversible, or any downstream effects. This is very sparse 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 two short sentences with no filler. Both sentences convey essential information: the action and the access limitation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool lacks annotations and an output schema, yet the description provides no details about return values, effects, or how it differs from the sibling service_update_host. The guidance is minimal for a tool in a complex admin context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% (both 'host' and 'service_id' have descriptions). The description adds no additional parameter information beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Change service hostname') with a specific resource (service hostname). It is clear but does not differentiate from the sibling tool service_update_host, which also likely changes a service hostname.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like service_update_host. The phrase 'White team only' provides access restriction context but does not explain when to choose this tool over the service-level update tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It only mentions access restriction and the change action, but does not disclose side effects, whether the change is reversible, or if it impacts existing connections. This is 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 extremely concise, with two short sentences that each add value: the action and the access restriction. It is front-loaded and avoids unnecessary words, though it may be overly brief for full 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?
The tool is simple with two fully described parameters, but the description omits response behavior, side effects, and the distinction from the sibling service_update_port. Without annotations or an output schema, the description does not fully equip the agent for safe and correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already provides full descriptions for both parameters (service_id and port), covering semantic meaning. The description adds no additional parameter context, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Change service port', which identifies the specific action and resource. However, it does not distinguish this admin tool from the sibling 'service_update_port', so it lacks differentiation from a similar tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. The only constraint, 'White team only', indicates access restriction but does not explain scenarios or exclusions, leaving the agent without usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'Update' (implying mutation) and a permission constraint, but does not disclose side effects, reversibility, return values, or any other behavioral details. 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 sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, and includes the access restriction. No redundant information, every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple and the input schema fully documents parameters, but the description lacks any mention of return behavior, prerequisites, or side effects. For an admin mutation tool, this is adequate but not comprehensive.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% and each parameter has a concise description, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no extra parameter-level context beyond what the schema already provides.
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 ('Update') and the resource ('inject template properties'), with a permission note ('White team only'). It is specific enough to distinguish this from create/delete/get template tools, though it doesn't explicitly mention that it operates on existing templates.
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 other inject template tools (create, delete, get) or other admin update tools. The only context is the 'White team only' access restriction, which is useful but not sufficient for selecting among alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavior disclosure. It indicates a write operation but does not mention any side effects, whether existing content is overwritten, specific permission requirements, or the response format. The 'White team only' note only partially addresses access control.
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 two concise sentences: the first states the action, and the second states the access restriction. There is no redundancy, and the structure is clear and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
While the parameters are fully documented in the schema and the action is straightforward, the description omits context such as what 'matching content' represents, the consequences of updating it, or the expected response. It is minimally viable but lacks depth for an agent to fully understand the tool's role within the broader environment management workflow.
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 descriptions cover 100% of parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond restating 'matching content' as the target; it does not elaborate on parameter formats, validation, or relationships.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the verb 'Update' and identifies the resource as 'environment matching content', clearly stating the core action. It distinguishes itself from sibling admin_update_* tools by specifically targeting the environment's matching content, though the term 'matching content' may require domain knowledge.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The only additional note, 'White team only', is an access restriction rather than a usage scenario, and no exclusions or alternative tools are referenced.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It states the action ('Set round duration') and a permission constraint ('White team only') but does not explain side effects such as whether the change applies immediately, affects the current round, or requires any special conditions. For a mutating tool, this lack of behavioral detail is a notable gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: two short sentences with no superfluous information. The front-loaded verb 'Set' immediately conveys the action, and the permission note 'White team only' is a useful, compact addition. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is mostly adequate. However, it omits behavioral context such as the effects of changing round duration and any potential constraints on allowed values beyond the schema type. This leaves it as a minimally viable entry, but it could be more complete with a note on when the change takes effect.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already provides full documentation for the single parameter 'time' with the description 'Round duration in seconds' (100% coverage). The tool description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond reinforcing the parameter's role, which aligns with the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Set round duration.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from other admin_update_* tools, though it does not explicitly name alternatives. The resource 'round duration' is unique enough to avoid confusion among the long list of siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. 'White team only' is an access restriction, not usage context. There is no mention of prerequisites, when changing round duration is appropriate, or that alternative tools like admin_update_worker_refresh_time exist for different timing parameters.
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 responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention side effects, required permissions, reversibility, or the result of adding a comment. The action is implied as a mutation, but consequences are undocumented.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that directly states the tool's function without redundancy or filler. It is efficiently front-loaded and earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple and parameters are fully described, but the description lacks information about return values, permissions, or side effects. Without annotations or an output schema, the agent is left guessing about the operation's outcome, though inputs are clear.
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?
Input schema fully describes both parameters (inject_id and comment) with clear descriptions, covering 100% of the schema. The description adds no extra parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'add' with a clear resource 'comment to an inject'. It unambiguously distinguishes from siblings like inject_get_comments (read operation) and inject_submit (submit answer). The purpose is immediately clear.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention context, prerequisites, or exclusions. It is a bare statement of function with no directional support for an agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states what information is returned and implies a read operation via 'Get', but does not mention permissions, error behavior, response shape, or whether comments/files are embedded.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the operation and key content. No unnecessary words or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter retrieval tool with no output schema, the description lists the main return elements (score, status, comments, files) but lacks detail on the exact structure or any prerequisites. It is minimally adequate but leaves gaps around response format and relationship to other inject-focused tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% for the single inject_id parameter, so the schema already defines it. The description does not add further meaning about where to obtain the ID or any formatting constraints, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate given complete schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed inject information') and enumerates included fields (score, status, comments, files). This makes it clear it is an aggregate fetch for a single inject, distinguishing it from siblings like inject_get_comments and inject_get_files, though it does not explicitly name these alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies use when needing full inject details, but does not exclude or compare with inject_get_comments, inject_get_files, or injects_list, which are listed as siblings.
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?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool mutates ('Modify') and restricts access ('White team only'), which are useful behavioral traits, but it does not explain reversibility, return values, or side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with the key verb, resource, and access restriction. No extraneous words; it is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema and minimal description, the agent lacks context about what happens on update, whether the property must exist, or what response to expect. The 3-parameter mutation tool needs more detail to be fully contextual.
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 coverage is 100%, with all three parameters described ('Property name', 'Property value', 'ID of the property'). The description adds no additional semantic details beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Modify' and identifies the resource as 'property name/value pairs,' clearly indicating the tool updates key-value properties. It is distinct from siblings like admin_update_host, though 'property' vs 'setting' could be ambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as admin_update_setting or admin_update_host. 'White team only' is an access restriction, not usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, what exact data it returns, or any potential side effects. The phrase 'queue statistics' implies a read operation but leaves behavior vague.
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 two short sentences with no redundant wording, front-loading the verb. However, it is so brief that it misses opportunities to add useful context without becoming unwieldy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema, the description must clarify what 'queue statistics' includes, but it does not. An admin tool like this would benefit from specifying return format or the type of metrics (e.g., queue length, task counts), leaving the description incomplete for a diagnostic context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and the schema is empty with 100% coverage vacuously. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but per the rubric, 0 parameters earns a baseline of 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('Celery queue statistics'), which clearly identifies the tool's function. It distinguishes itself from sibling admin stats tools like admin_get_worker_stats and admin_get_engine_stats by naming the exact subsystem.
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 only usage guidance is 'White team only,' which conveys access control but not when to use this tool versus alternatives. No context is given for when queue statistics are needed (e.g., diagnosing backlog) or when to prefer other stats tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool records a grade and timestamp, but does not disclose whether it overwrites existing grades, whether it is idempotent, what response is returned, or any side effects. For a mutation tool, 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the verb, and contains no filler. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity and earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with two documented parameters and no output schema, so the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks information about return values, whether the operation is an insert or update, and possible score constraints, leaving some ambiguity for an admin tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema covers 100% of parameters with clear descriptions ('Score to assign' and 'ID of the inject'), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, which is acceptable but not additive.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Record' with a clear resource 'inject grade and timestamp', and adds an access restriction 'White team only'. It is unambiguous about what the tool does, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like inject_submit, so slightly less than 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 Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'White team only' provides some usage context, implying this is an administrative/grading action rather than a participant submission. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., inject_submit for submissions), and no mention of prerequisites or conditions beyond the role restriction.
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?
The description notes that only white team members can delete templates, which is a useful access constraint. However, it does not disclose that deletion is likely irreversible or describe any side effects (e.g., removal from related injects), and there are no annotations to compensate.
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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the access restriction. Every word earns its place; no fluff or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple delete operation with one fully documented parameter, the description is adequate but could mention that deletion is permanent and what happens to associated data. Without annotations, it misses an opportunity to warn agents about irreversible consequences.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The single parameter template_id is fully documented in the schema with 100% coverage. The description adds no extra semantic detail beyond confirming the context, so it meets the baseline but does not enhance parameter understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Delete' with the resource 'inject template', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like create, update, or get templates. The white-team-only note further clarifies its scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance is given for when to use this tool versus alternatives such as admin_injects_update_template or admin_injects_create_template. The action itself implies usage, but there are no exclusions or references to other 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 only states 'Configure worker refresh intervals' and 'White team only,' without revealing any side effects, whether changes take effect immediately, or if this is a global setting. The tool mutates configuration, but this is only implied by 'configure.'
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, containing two short sentences that each convey necessary information: the tool's action and the access restriction. No filler words or redundancy, so every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema) and the schema covering the parameter, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks context about the scope of the setting (e.g., global vs per-worker) and the effect on running workers, which would be helpful for an admin tool with no annotations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% (the 'time' parameter is described as 'Refresh interval in seconds'), so the schema already provides the parameter's meaning. The description 'Configure worker refresh intervals' adds no additional semantic depth beyond what the schema provides, meriting the baseline score of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Configure') and resource ('worker refresh intervals'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like admin_update_worker_queue and admin_update_target_round_time. The phrase 'Configure worker refresh intervals' unambiguously states the tool's purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The only additional note is 'White team only,' which is an access restriction, not usage context. There is no mention of scenarios or prerequisites.
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?
The description discloses the permission requirement, which is an important behavioral trait, but with no annotations provided, it carries the full burden. It omits other behavioral details such as response format, validation behavior, or reversibility, leaving significant transparency gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two short, front-loaded sentences with no wasted words. Every piece of information (action, target, permission) earns its place, making it highly efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with two clearly described parameters and no output schema, so the core action and permission note provide adequate context. However, it lacks clarification on return behavior and does not distinguish itself from the similar admin_update_port, leaving room for improvement.
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?
Both parameters (service_id and port) have descriptions in the input schema, providing 100% coverage. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
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 ('Update port') and the target ('for a service'), making the purpose specific. It distinguishes itself from service_update_host and service_update_account by naming the port field, though it does not explicitly contrast with the similar admin_update_port sibling.
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 only a permission prerequisite ('Requires blue team edit permissions') and no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like admin_update_port or other service_update_* tools. No exclusions or when-not-to-use conditions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Create a new inject template' and 'White team only.' It does not mention side effects, return value, validation, or permissions beyond the white team hint. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with zero waste. It states purpose and access restriction in just eight words, achieving high conciseness without 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 three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., the created template), any validation rules (e.g., max_score bounds), or the effect of duplication. The name and schema carry most of the load, leaving gaps in operational understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema already handles parameter documentation.
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 verb and resource: 'Create a new inject template.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like update/delete/get templates. The 'White team only' note also hints at the access context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It is clear that the tool is for creating a new template, but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or provide alternatives (e.g., for editing, use update_template). 'White team only' gives a usage restriction, but no exclusions are stated.
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?
The description discloses 'White team only' as an access restriction, adding behavioral context beyond the schema. However, with no annotations, it fails to mention side effects, reversibility, or return behavior of the update, which is a notable 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that is efficient and front-loaded with the action and resource. It avoids unnecessary fluff, though 'various' is slightly filler and could be more specific.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with only two parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It gives an access constraint and examples, but omits any mention of success/failure behavior or side effects, which would be useful for an update operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already provides descriptions for both parameters, including a list of valid setting names, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds little beyond restating 'update settings' and does not provide additional syntax or format details.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool updates settings, with examples like blue team permissions and about page content, distinguishing it from other admin_update_* tools that target hosts, ports, or checks. However, 'various settings' is somewhat vague and does not enumerate all possible settings, making the purpose clear but not fully precise.
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?
It implies this tool is for updating settings without a more specific dedicated tool (e.g., admin_update_host, admin_update_port) but does not explicitly compare to alternatives or state when not to use this tool. The 'White team only' note gives access guidance but not usage alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it merely restates the function. It does not reveal whether the list contains file metadata, content, URLs, or how errors are handled, offering minimal behavioral insight beyond the tool name.
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, well-structured sentence that immediately states the action and target resource. It contains no filler 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?
While the tool is simple with one parameter, the lack of an output schema means the description should explain what the returned list contains (e.g., file names, IDs, URLs). It does not, leaving the agent uncertain about the tool's output and limiting completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema fully describes inject_id (100% coverage), so the description is not required to add parameter details. It also provides no additional context about how to obtain the ID or format it, which is acceptable given the schema coverage.
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 specifies a concrete verb ('Get') and resource ('list of files attached to an inject'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like inject_get (which retrieves inject details) and injects_list (which lists injects). It is unambiguous and precise.
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?
No explicit guidance is provided for when to use this tool versus alternatives such as inject_get_comments or inject_get. The intended usage is implied by the purpose, but there are no clear exclusions or context cues, leaving the agent to infer appropriateness.
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 does not mention read-only safety, side effects, rate limits, or whether data is real-time or cached. The verb 'Get' implies read-only, but that is minimal and already part of purpose clarity, not a sufficient behavioral disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that leads with the action ('Get detailed overview data') and then lists the key content types. There is no wasted wording, and the structure is clear and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has no output schema, so the description must convey return information. It lists high-level data categories but does not describe the response structure, field names, or nesting. For an agent that needs to consume the data, more detail about the exact output format would be helpful, leaving a gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the schema is trivially complete. According to the rubric, a zero-parameter tool gets a baseline of 4, and the description correctly doesn't need to explain parameter semantics. No additional parameter information is needed.
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 returns 'detailed overview data' and enumerates specific data types (current scores, team rankings, service up/down ratios, per-service status), giving a clear sense of purpose. It is distinct from siblings through the 'detailed' qualifier, but does not explicitly name alternatives or contrast with other overview tools, so it misses the top score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies this tool is used when detailed overview data including scores, rankings, and service status is needed, but it provides no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives. It gives a clear context but lacks exclusions or comparisons to sibling tools like overview_get_data.
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 bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions 'White team only' (an authorization constraint) but does not describe side effects, return values, required permissions beyond white team access, or any potential consequences. For a mutation tool like this, more transparency is expected.
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 comprised of two short, direct sentences: the action and the authorization. No filler or redundancy; every word serves a purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity of the tool (three parameters, no nested objects, no output schema), the description is relatively minimal but not entirely inadequate. It communicates the core action and a key constraint, yet leaves out details like what the success response looks like or whether there are preconditions (e.g., team existence). For a simple create operation, this is borderline acceptable.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema covers all three parameters (username, password, team_id) with descriptions that are sufficient for an agent to understand their meaning. The description adds no extra semantic detail, but since the schema coverage is 100%, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Create' and the resource 'a new user account', making the purpose unambiguous. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like admin_add_team and admin_update_password by specifying it creates users, not teams or password changes.
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 phrase 'White team only' adds a usage restriction, implying this tool is intended for authorized white team members. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or provide any when-not-to-use guidance. The usage context is implied by the tool's purpose rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden. It only says 'Modify' and 'White team only' but does not disclose whether the update is destructive, triggers side effects like score recalculation, or overwrites existing reasons. This leaves significant ambiguity 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?
Two short sentences with no filler. Every word serves a purpose: the action and the access restriction. Ideal conciseness for a simple tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The schema covers parameters well, but the description lacks information about return values, side effects, or reversibility. 'White team only' adds some context, and the tool is simple enough that the description is minimally adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides full descriptions for all three parameters (check_id, result, reason), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond mapping 'results and reasons' to the schema fields.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description states 'Modify check results and reasons' with a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from siblings like admin_update_host and admin_update_points. The action is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'White team only' implies a usage restriction, but the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention exclusions. Usage context is implied by the purpose, not explicitly guided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. 'Get' suggests a non-mutating operation, but the description does not specify whether notifications are marked as read, if the view is restricted to the current user's team, or what the return payload includes. This ambiguity leaves room for incorrect assumptions.
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?
One concise sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with no annotations or output schema, so the description must be self-sufficient. It conveys the basic purpose but omits context about how 'unread' is determined, whether this is a read-only operation, and how it differs from notifications_list. Given the low complexity, it is adequate but not complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the schema fully covers parameter semantics (100%). With 0 params, the baseline is 4; the description doesn't need to add parameter detail.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Get') and a specific resource ('unread notifications for the current user's team'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling 'notifications_list' by adding the 'unread' qualifier, though the sibling is not explicitly referenced.
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 instead of notifications_list. It implies it is for unread only, but does not explicitly state the alternative for all notifications or any usage conditions.
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 must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the core side effect: 'marking it as submitted with timestamp.' However, it omits other relevant behavioral traits such as reversibility, permission requirements, or the outcome of submitting an already-submitted inject. It provides basic transparency but lacks depth 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence: 'Submit an inject, marking it as submitted with timestamp.' Every word earns its place, with no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail. It is highly concise while still conveying the essential action and result.
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 low complexity (one parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is largely complete. It states the action and the resulting state change. While it lacks details about edge cases or error behavior, the simplicity of the tool makes such details less critical. The description adequately covers what an agent needs to know for a straightforward submit operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The sole parameter 'inject_id' is already fully described in the schema ('The ID of the inject to submit') with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter beyond what the schema provides. Since the schema handles the parameter documentation, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Submit an inject, marking it as submitted with timestamp.' It uses a specific verb ('Submit') and resource ('inject'), and distinguishes the action from sibling tools like inject_get or injects_list. The effect is uniquely described, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage 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, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. It simply states what the tool does. In a context with many inject-related sibling tools, explicit usage guidance would be valuable, but it is entirely absent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits on its own. It does specify the type of data returned (host, port, status, ranking, scores, check results), which gives some transparency, but it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, nor does it describe the output structure or any potential side effects. This is adequate but not thorough.
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, well-structured sentence that immediately identifies the action and resource, then lists the specific details returned. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple retrieval tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides a reasonable overview of the returned data. However, it does not specify the exact structure (e.g., array vs. object) or any error conditions, and it lacks any comparison with similar sibling tools, leaving some gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already fully describes the single parameter 'team_id' with a clear description. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level information, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it retrieves all services for a team and enumerates the details included (host, port, status, ranking, scores, and last ten check results). This distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'team_get_services_status', which appears to focus only on status.
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 regarding when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as 'team_get_services_status' or 'service_get_checks'. The description only states what it does, not the specific 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.
Behavior3/5
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 an access restriction ('White team only') and hints at return content ('round number and check counts'), but does not describe return format, response structure, or any side effects. As a simple read operation, this is adequate but not rich.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource. Every word earns its place with no fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description must explain return behavior. It offers only two example fields ('round number' and 'check counts'), leaving the full set of engine statistics unspecified. For a simple read endpoint this is acceptable but incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the schema is complete. Baseline 4 applies because there is nothing to document and no parameter semantics to add.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Get', identifies the resource 'engine statistics', and adds distinguishing details 'round number and check counts', which clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like admin_get_engine_status and admin_get_worker_stats.
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. The only contextual note, 'White team only', is an access restriction, not a usage scenario or alternative tool mention, so there is no guidance about choosing it over similar admin stats 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 for behavioral disclosure. It indicates the operation is a mutation ('Update') and mentions permission requirements, but it does not disclose potential side effects, whether changes are reversible, or what response the agent should expect. This is a significant gap for a write operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that conveys the core purpose and a key precondition without any filler. Every word adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is a simple update operation with a well-covered schema, but the description lacks behavioral details (e.g., return value, partial update semantics, idempotency). While the simplicity lowers the bar, the missing transparency for a mutation tool leaves clear gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already provides 100% coverage, describing all three parameters (account_id, username, password) with clear meanings. The description adds no extra semantic detail beyond what the schema states, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('service account'), and clearly identifies the fields affected ('username or password'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like service_update_host and service_update_port by specifying the target resource and fields.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides a clear precondition for use ('Requires blue team edit permissions'), which helps the agent determine when invocation is permitted. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like admin_update_password or describe scenarios where this tool should not be used.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does describe the output as a mapping and specifies the temporal scope ('most recent round'), which is useful. However, it does not disclose error behavior, authentication needs, or whether the operation is read-only (though implied by 'Get'). It adds some context but leaves gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that efficiently conveys the purpose and output structure. The phrasing 'mapping service names to their check results' is slightly awkward but not overly verbose. It earns a high score for being front-loaded and concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides enough context by explaining the return value (mapping of service names to check results) and the temporal scope. It does not detail possible errors or status interpretations, but for this complexity it is reasonably complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides 100% description coverage for the single parameter team_id ('The ID of the team'), so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any extra meaning beyond reiterating 'for a team', which is already in the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'current service status for a team', and further specifies the output as 'mapping service names to their check results for the most recent round'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like team_get_services (likely just lists services) and service_get_checks (per-service checks).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when you need a team's service status for the latest round, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or mention any exclusions. It provides a clear context but lacks guidance on when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose an important behavioral trait: authentication and team membership are required. However, it does not mention whether the operation is read-only, potential error conditions, or response format. This is a reasonable amount of transparency but not comprehensive.
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 two concise sentences. The first sentence front-loads the primary purpose with a clear verb and specifics; the second adds a necessary prerequisite. There is no redundancy or wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description states the main purpose and a key requirement, but it does not clarify whether the returned statistics apply only to the specified team or if other teams' stats are accessible. There is no mention of return format or possible errors, which would be expected given the absence of an output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has full coverage of the single parameter (team_id) with its own description 'The ID of the team.' The tool description does not add further parameter details, but since coverage is 100%, the schema already handles parameter semantics. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Get team statistics including placement and current score.' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('team statistics'), and names key data fields (placement, current score), distinguishing it from sibling tools like team_get_services or stats_get_rounds.
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 gives an implied usage context (when you need team statistics), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions. The requirement 'Requires authentication and team membership' is a prerequisite rather than usage guidance, so no explicit comparison to sibling tools is offered.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not elaborate on any side effects, data scope, or permission nuances beyond the access restriction. It is minimally sufficient but lacks depth.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no redundant language. It conveys the essential purpose and access restriction efficiently, earning a perfect score for conciseness.
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 that this is a simple zero-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It could potentially mention what kind of stats are included (e.g., latency, queue size), but the absence of such detail is not a major gap for a tool of this simplicity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool takes no parameters, and schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing to explain. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate when there are no parameters, and the description correctly avoids inventing unnecessary parameter details.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and the specific resource ('Celery worker statistics'), which distinguishes it from sibling stats tools like admin_get_engine_stats and admin_get_queue_stats. The verb and noun are specific and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The only usage guidance is 'White team only,' which is an access restriction rather than guidance on when to use this tool versus others. No mention of contexts for use or exclusions is provided, leaving the agent without clear direction on when to select this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the aggregation ('summed'), grouping ('per blue team'), and permission ('White team only'), which is useful. However, it doesn't explicitly state read-only behavior, return format, or any edge cases, leaving moderate ambiguity.
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 short, front-loaded sentences with no wasted words. The essential information is delivered immediately.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a parameterless tool with no output schema, the description gives adequate context: what data is returned (summed scores), grouped by blue team, and who can access it. It doesn't explain the response shape, but the name 'bar_chart' and sibling context make that less critical.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has zero parameters and schema_description_coverage is 100% (vacuously). No parameter details are needed, and the description adds no misleading information. Baseline 4 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and the resource ('summed inject scores per blue team'), with a specific access scope ('White team only'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like admin_injects_get_scores, which likely provide raw scores or different aggregations.
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 scoreboard_get_bar_data or admin_injects_get_scores. The 'White team only' note is an access restriction, not a usage recommendation or exclusion.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the 'White team only' access restriction, which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not mention potential errors (e.g., template not found), permission specifics, or any side effects, though for a simple read operation this is less critical.
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 two short sentences, immediately stating the core action and the access constraint. No wasted words, and the key information is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple (one required parameter, no output schema), and the description plus schema fully convey what the tool does. The sibling context (admin_injects_get_templates for listing) materially disambiguates this singular-get function. A small gap is lack of detail about what 'details' includes, but that is not essential for invoking the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already documents the only parameter template_id with a clear description ('ID of the template'), achieving 100% coverage. The tool description adds little beyond the schema, only contextualizing it as a 'specific' template, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the verb 'Get' with the resource 'specific inject template details', clearly distinguishing it from the sibling tool admin_injects_get_templates (plural) which lists templates. The 'White team only' note adds an access qualifier that further clarifies the tool's purpose.
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 this tool is for retrieving a single template by ID (through the template_id parameter), but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like admin_injects_get_templates or inject_get. The 'White team only' restriction provides some context but no direct comparison to siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure, but only states the action and access level. It does not disclose potential side effects such as invalidating existing sessions, password policy requirements, or whether the change is reversible. This is a mutating operation and needs more context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences, no filler. The core purpose and access restriction are front-loaded, making it easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple two-parameter tool with full schema coverage, the description is largely complete: it names the action, target, and access control. The only gap is lack of side-effect disclosure, but the overall simplicity keeps it from being a major omission.
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?
Input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for both user_id and password, so the schema already documents parameters adequately. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, warranting the baseline score of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description uses a specific verb ('Change') and resource ('a user's password'), clearly identifying the tool's function. It distinguishes itself from sibling admin_* tools by naming the exact action and target.
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?
States 'White team only', providing an explicit authorization/identity restriction. It does not mention alternatives, but no sibling tool performs password changes, so differentiation is not strictly needed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the transparency burden. It discloses the mutating nature ('update') and an access rule ('White team only'), but omits side effects, validation, error behavior, and whether this overwrites prior values. This is minimal but not absent.
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 short sentences, front-loaded, no filler. Every word adds information: action and authorization.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple two-parameter write operation, the description plus schema is mostly sufficient. It lacks an explanation of return values or side effects on scoreboard, but these are not essential for invoking the operation. The 'White team only' inclusion is valuable context given the admin sibling set.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with both 'service_id' and 'points' having clear descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter nuance, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 identifies the action ('update') and the resource ('service point values'), distinguishing it from sibling tools such as admin_update_host and admin_update_port. 'White team only' adds a scope/authorization constraint.
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 only usage guidance is the 'White team only' role restriction, which tells the agent who may invoke the tool but does not explain when to prefer it over alternatives. There is no mention of when-not to use it or references to similar admin_update_* tools, so the context is implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'White team only' as an access restriction, which is some context, but it does not disclose side effects, idempotency, or prerequisites like service existence. The name implies an update operation but gives no details.
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, consisting of two short sentences that convey the core action and access restriction without any filler or unnecessary detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple two-parameter admin update tool, the description is nearly complete. It clearly states the operation and access restriction, and the schema covers the parameters. It could be improved by mentioning that it updates an existing worker queue assignment, but the name and schema make this inferable.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema covers both parameters fully with descriptions for service_id and worker_queue, achieving 100% coverage. The description does not add any additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides.
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 'Assign worker queue to service' clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling admin_update_* tools by specifying the exact action, making it unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when one needs to assign a worker queue to a service, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternative tools. The 'White team only' note is an access hint rather than a usage guideline.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It adds useful context by specifying the team scope and that read status is included in the response. However, it does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., marking notifications as read), pagination, or ordering, which are material for a list endpoint.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, front-loaded sentence that states the verb, resource, and key behavioral detail ('including read status') without any fluff. Every word contributes value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description conveys the essential selection information: what is returned and for whom. It falls slightly short only on return-format details such as pagination or ordering, which are not covered elsewhere.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description's scope ('current user's team') aligns with the empty input schema, and there are no parameter semantics requiring compensation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('notifications for the current user's team'), and the phrase 'all' plus 'including read status' clearly distinguishes this from the sibling notifications_unread, which focuses on unread items. The purpose is immediately obvious.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus notifications_unread or other siblings. The description only states what the tool does; it does not mention alternatives, exclusions, or preconditions.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. The use of 'Get' and 'Returns' implies a read-only data retrieval operation with no side effects. However, the description does not disclose additional traits such as ordering, error handling, or behavior with missing data, which would be valuable for a tool without annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, focused sentence that front-loads the key information ('Get team bar chart data') and includes only necessary details about the return content. No filler or redundant phrases are present.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (zero parameters, no output schema), the description adequately covers the essential return values for visualization. It lists the main data components (labels, scores, team names, service scores, inject scores) but does not specify the exact structure (e.g., array vs object), which would be useful since no output schema is provided.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has zero parameters, so there is no parameter information to explain. The description adds meaningful context beyond the empty schema by specifying the exact data returned (team names, service scores, inject scores), which helps an agent understand the tool's output despite having no parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Get team bar chart data' with a specific resource and scope. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'scoreboard_get_line_data' by focusing on bar chart data and explicitly listing the included content (team names, service scores, inject scores).
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 simply states what it does without any context about preferred use cases, exclusions, or comparisons to related tools like scoreboard_get_line_data.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It lists the fields returned, but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only (though implied), any auth needs, rate limits, or other behavioral traits. Adds some value but not rich context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, no filler words. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter read tool, the description is mostly complete: it states the purpose and the fields returned. It lacks explicit return shape or pagination details, but those are not critical given the straightforward nature.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% (single param service_id described as 'The ID of the service'). The description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('check history for a service') and enumerates the returned fields (round number, result, timestamp, reason, output, command). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like service_update_* which are mutations.
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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention any exclusions. Usage is implied by the name and description ('get check history'), so it is minimally adequate but lacks explicit guidance.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses a permission requirement, which adds context, but does not mention side effects, idempotency, or whether the service must exist. This is minimal but better than nothing.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that is front-loaded with the action and contains no fluff. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple two-parameter update tool, the description covers the core purpose and permission context. It does not describe return values, but no output schema exists. The main gap is the implicit distinction from 'admin_update_host', which is not fully clarified.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides 100% coverage of both parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no meaningful parameter detail beyond naming 'hostname', which is already in the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('service' + 'hostname'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It also distinguishes from the sibling 'admin_update_host' implicitly by referencing 'blue team edit permissions'.
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 gives a usage prerequisite (blue team permissions) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like 'admin_update_host' or 'service_update_port'. There is no clear exclusion or alternative guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions authorization ('White team only') but does not disclose consequences such as whether pausing interrupts an ongoing round, whether the change is immediately effective, or whether it is reversible. For a mutating admin operation, this is a notable 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 two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler or redundancy. Every word contributes meaning: the action and the access restriction.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter toggle with no output schema, the description covers the core function and access control. However, it omits return behavior and post-condition details, such as whether the tool returns a status or needs verification via admin_get_engine_status. The description is minimally viable but not fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100%, so no parameter explanation is required. The baseline score of 4 applies because there is nothing for the description to add about parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb pair ('Pause or resume') and names the exact resource ('the scoring engine'), making the tool's function unambiguous. It is clearly distinct from sibling tools like admin_get_engine_status, which reads status rather than mutating it.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'White team only' provides a clear audience/authorization context, and the action itself makes the intended use obvious. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or describe when to choose pause vs. resume, but no sibling tool performs this exact toggle, so the guidance is adequate.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this is a create operation, but does not mention permissions, side effects, idempotency, or error behavior. The 'White team only' constraint adds some behavioral context, but more transparency would be beneficial.
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, consisting of two short sentences. It front-loads the primary action and then adds a critical constraint. Every word is purposeful, with no redundancy or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple create tool with only two parameters and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It clearly states the action and the team color restriction. However, it omits any mention of return value or potential failure modes, which would be useful in the absence of an output schema. Overall, sufficient but not exhaustive.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides full descriptions for both the 'name' and 'color' parameters (100% coverage). The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema already offers. Thus it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's action: 'Create a new team.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and the 'White team only' qualifier distinguishes this from any generic team creation. This differentiates it from sibling tools like admin_add_user and admin_get_teams.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'White team only' provides clear contextual guidance on when to use this tool, indicating a restriction. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives for non-white teams, but the constraint is useful and there may not be an alternative. The context is clear enough.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait (restricted to the White team) and implies a read-only operation via 'Get.' However, it does not describe the output format, whether the data is live or cached, or any error behaviors, leaving some ambiguity about what the agent can expect.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that immediately states the action, the data provided, and the access restriction. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no fluff or redundant phrasing.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description adequately conveys the essential purpose and a critical access constraint. It could be more complete by specifying the exact return structure (e.g., mapping of team IDs to percentages), but the current level is sufficient for a simple query tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and the schema is trivially fully covered by the empty properties object. Per the rubric, zero parameters warrants a baseline of 4. The description adds no parameter details because none exist, but no compensation is needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Get' and a clear resource: 'task completion percentages per team for current round.' It distinguishes this from sibling admin and overview tools by specifying the exact metric and scope, and it includes the access restriction 'White team only.'
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 indicates that this tool is for the 'White team only,' which is a clear usage constraint. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternative reporting tools (e.g., scoreboard_get_line_data or overview_get_data), nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites beyond the team restriction.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the White team access requirement, but it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or describe potential side effects or response structure. The behavior is inferred from 'Get', but key safety details are left to the user's assumption.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys both the action and access restriction with no filler. It is maximally concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter list operation, the description provides the essential information: it returns all template assignments and is restricted to White team. While it does not explicitly say it returns a list, 'Get all' and the plural noun make this clear, and there is no output schema to explain.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and the schema confirms this. With no parameters to describe, the description does not need to add parameter semantics; the baseline of 4 applies.
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 specifies the verb 'Get' and the resource 'all inject templates' with team assignments, distinguishing it from the singular 'admin_injects_get_template' sibling. It also notes the access restriction (White team only), making its purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description states who can use the tool (White team only) but does not explicitly explain when to use this tool versus the singular template getter or other inject tools. Usage is implied by the 'all' and plural resource, but no direct comparison to alternatives is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must convey behavior. It discloses the auth requirement (red or white team membership), which is useful context. However, it does not specify response format, ordering, pagination, or any side effects. For a read-only GET of a list, this is partial transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence starting with the verb 'Get' and immediately specifies the resource and included fields. It is compact and front-loaded, with no filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with no parameters or output schema, so the description covers the core purpose and auth requirement. However, it lacks any mention of how this tool relates to sibling flag tools (solves/totals), leaving some contextual ambiguity. Given the low complexity, it's nearly complete but not quite.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters, so there is nothing to document. The description doesn't discuss parameters, which is appropriate. Baseline 4 is granted for no-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 tool retrieves all active flags and enumerates the included fields (type, platform, permissions, path, content). It distinguishes from siblings like flags_get_solves and flags_get_totals by focusing on the raw active flag data rather than derived metrics. Verb 'Get' and resource 'all active flags' are specific.
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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool over sibling flag tools. It mentions a membership prerequisite but offers no direct comparison to alternatives like flags_get_solves or flags_get_totals. Usage is implied by the name and field list, but no explicit guidance is provided.
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?
No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavior. It does mention the authorization requirement (red/white team membership), but does not describe the response format, error conditions, or safety profile. This is partial but not comprehensive.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and output scope, followed by the access requirement. No filler or redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently conveys the purpose, output scope, and access condition. Minor gap: no explicit mention of returning a list structure, but the described scope is adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are zero parameters, so the description benefits from the baseline 4. The description adds no parameter-specific details because none exist, and the scope of the operation is already clear.
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 a specific action ('Get flag solve status') with a defined scope ('user and root level solves per team/service'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like flags_get_active and flags_get_totals.
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?
Provides clear context about what data is returned and an access prerequisite ('Requires red or white team membership'), but does not explicitly mention alternative tools or when not to use it. Usage is implied rather than directly contrasted with siblings.
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 responsibility for behavioral disclosure. 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not add context such as whether pagination, ordering, or specific permissions apply. It is transparent enough for a simple getter but lacks extra behavioral details.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple getter with one parameter and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the tool's function. It does not describe return format, but the meaning is clear. The context is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema covers 100% of the parameter with 'The ID of the inject', which matches the description's 'an inject'. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get all comments for an inject' uses a specific verb (Get), object (all comments), and resource (an inject), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like inject_get (gets inject details) and inject_add_comment (adds a comment).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context: use this tool when you need all comments for a specific inject. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is unambiguous given the sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It adds a meaningful detail (blue team names included) but does not mention potential side effects, read-only nature, or return format. For a simple get operation, this is minimally adequate but leaves room for more context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any filler. Every word adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It specifies what is returned (column headers) and a key detail (blue team names), though it does not describe the exact structure or behavior in edge cases. Given the low complexity, this is sufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has no parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and the baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, which is appropriate here.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: retrieving column headers for the overview, with a specific detail about including blue team names. This distinguishes it from sibling overview tools that fetch data or round details.
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 usage context is implied by the description: the tool is for getting column headers, not full data. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus sibling tools like overview_get_data, nor any mention of alternatives or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description bears the full responsibility. It states the output is a mapping with team names and service details (host, port, passing status), implying a read-only retrieval. It does not mention side effects or permissions, but 'Get' and the content description offer reasonable transparency for a simple fetch 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, front-loaded sentence with no redundancy. Every word contributes to the meaning.
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 absence of annotations and output schema, the description adequately conveys the return structure. However, it could be more explicit about data types or the exact shape of 'services' (e.g., list or dictionary) and the nature of 'passing status' (boolean or string). For a simple, parameterless tool, this is sufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and an empty schema. The description adds no parameter information, but none is needed. Baseline for 0-param tools is 4, and the description implicitly confirms no input is required.
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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'overview data', and specifies the content as 'mapping team names to services with host, port, and passing status.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like overview_get_round_data and overview_get_detailed_data by indicating it provides a per-team service status summary.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any exclusions or when to prefer overview_get_detailed_data for more detail.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the return data (round labels, cumulative scores, colors) but does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, or whether any side effects or authentication are involved. For a simple getter, this is adequate but not rich; it could mention it is safe and does not modify data.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action ('Get team line chart data') and provides essential return details. Every word earns its place; no fluff or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple (no params, no output schema), and the description explains what it returns. It lacks an explicit mention of how to use it versus the sibling bar chart tool, but given the low complexity, the description is largely complete. The absence of an output schema is partially compensated by the return description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and the description has nothing to add about params. Given the baseline of 4 for 0-parameter tools, this is appropriate. The description does not need to compensate for any schema gaps because there are none.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool 'Get team line chart data showing score progression over rounds' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from the sibling scoreboard_get_bar_data by explicitly mentioning 'line chart' and describing the return data (round labels, cumulative scores, colors).
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 use when line chart data is needed, but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. Since a sibling exists for bar data, a brief note ('For bar data, use scoreboard_get_bar_data') would have clarified when to choose this tool. The lack of params reduces the need for prerequisites, but the guidance is only implicit.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully discloses role-based visibility ('Blue team sees only their stats, white team sees all'), but does not state whether the operation is read-only or mention other potential limitations.
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: the first states the action and included data, the second explains access scoping. No redundant or filler content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter read tool, the description adequately specifies the data content and role-based access. It could mention the response format or ordering, but the core use is clear without an output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially complete and no parameter documentation is required. The baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the specific verb ('Get') and resource ('round statistics'), and enumerates the included data points (start/end times, duration, up/down service counts). It also differentiates from siblings by describing the blue/white team visibility scoping.
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?
Usage is implied through the purpose statement, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or mention of alternative tools. The role-based scoping provides some context, but does not direct the agent among comparable stats/overview sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that this is a read-only status check ('Get') and explicitly notes the access requirement ('White team only'), which is valuable behavioral context beyond the tool name alone.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the action and access restriction with no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple status getter with no params and no output schema, the description is complete: it states what is retrieved and who can use it. Return format is implied by 'whether', which is sufficient for this level of complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and the schema is empty, so there is no parameter information needed. The description adds no param semantics, but the baseline for 0 params is 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool 'Get whether the scoring engine is paused' with a specific verb and resource, and 'White team only' adds access context. It distinguishes from siblings like admin_toggle_engine (which changes state) and admin_get_engine_stats (which provides stats).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention admin_toggle_engine for changing the pause state or other admin_get_* tools. 'White team only' is an authorization constraint, not a usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns sensitive data (credentials), which is valuable. However, it does not mention authentication requirements, potential data volume, or any side effects. This is adequate but not rich.
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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and followed by a critical scoping restriction. Every word contributes value, with no redundancy or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description provides a reasonable amount of context: it specifies the data returned (teams, users, credentials) and the access restriction. It lacks some detail about response structure, but for a basic getter this is acceptable.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the description adds no parameter-specific meaning. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate for no-parameter tools, as there is nothing to document.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves all teams along with their associated users and credentials, using a specific verb ('get') and resource ('teams'). It also includes a scoping restriction ('White team only'), which distinguishes it from other admin tools that add or update teams.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'White team only' provides clear context about when this tool is applicable, implying it should not be used for other team types. There are no explicit alternatives mentioned, but given the absence of a similar listing tool among siblings, this is sufficient guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It adds access restriction and result organization but does not disclose read-only nature, authentication details, or error behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, with no extraneous content.
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 no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately conveys what is returned (scores organized by template and team) and the access restriction. It lacks fine-grained response details but is sufficient for a simple read tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific info, but none is needed; schema coverage is trivially complete.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('inject scores') with clear organization ('by template and team'), fully distinguishing it from sibling tools like admin_injects_get_templates or scoreboard_get_bar_data.
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?
It clearly states the access restriction ('White team only'), giving context on who should use it, but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the scope and returned fields, which is useful, but it does not mention read-only behavior, pagination, ordering, or any side effects. For a simple list operation, this is adequate but minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that includes the essential information: action, resource, scope, and returned fields. There is no wasted text or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a no-parameter, no-output-schema list tool, the description is fairly complete: it lists all returned fields and the user scope. It lacks mention of pagination or sorting, but those are not expected in a simple list, and the field enumeration provides sufficient detail for invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, which defaults to a baseline of 4. Since there are no parameters to document, the description does not need to compensate for schema gaps. It appropriately says nothing about parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'List' with a clear resource 'injects' and scope 'for the current user's team', while naming the exact fields returned. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like inject_get or admin_injects_get_scores.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'for the current user's team' gives clear context for when this tool is appropriate, distinguishing it from admin-facing inject tools. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.
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?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'Get' implies a read-only operation, and the description states exactly what data is returned, but it does not disclose potential nuances such as timezone, null behavior, or whether the data is cached. For a simple getter, this is adequate but not richly transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose. It contains no filler or redundant information, making it highly efficient and easy to parse for an AI agent.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description adequately covers the essential information. It tells the agent what data will be retrieved. It could mention the response format or data type, but the current level is sufficient for a straightforward getter.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing to document. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description correctly omits parameter details. No additional parameter semantics are needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Get current round number and start time of the competition.' It names a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('round number and start time'), which is distinct from sibling tools like overview_get_data or scoreboard_get_bar_data. This fully clarifies the tool's purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for when to use this tool: whenever the current round number and start time are needed. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is self-evident and unambiguous. Since no alternatives are mentioned, it falls slightly short of a 5 but is still well above minimal guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the auth requirement and names the return fields, but does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or describe any other behavioral constraints, leaving some gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary phrasing, efficiently conveying the action, subject, and outputs.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers the essential context: what the tool returns (per-team totals with three components) and the required membership, making it complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies; the description does not need to explain any parameter syntax or semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Get' and resource 'flag scoring totals per team', listing the included scores (Windows, NIX, combined) and clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like flags_get_solves or flags_get_active.
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?
It provides clear context by stating the tool returns per-team totals and requires red or white team membership, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a full usage guideline.
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:

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

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

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

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