MCP ToolKit
Server Quality Checklist
Latest release: v0.0.0
- Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, but there are overlapping variants like copy/copy_file/copy_directory. The 'primary' tool recommendations help reduce confusion, making selection mostly unambiguous.
Naming Consistency4/5Most tool names follow a verb_noun pattern (e.g., create_file, delete_directory). However, a few exceptions like 'file_exists' and 'file_stat' break the pattern, and single-verb tools 'copy', 'delete', 'move' stand out.
Tool Count2/5With 33 tools, this server is larger than typical MCP servers. The set includes many redundant variants (e.g., three flavors each for copy, delete, and move), which inflates the count without adding significant functional breadth.
Completeness4/5The tool set covers most core file system and command execution workflows, including CRUD, directory management, search, and async command control. Minor gaps exist, such as no direct file content search or batch copy/move, but these can be worked around.
Average 4/5 across 33 of 33 tools scored. Lowest: 3.1/5.
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
- Last stable release on
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under Apache 2.0.
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.jsonto 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 fully disclose behavior. It states the blacklist is updated and that commands/directories are blocked, but does not specify whether this operation is additive or replaces the existing blacklist, whether it requires special permissions, or what side effects occur. The mismatch between 'update' and 'add' leaves critical behavioral ambiguity.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and front-loaded, stating the action and scope in one clear sentence. The addition of a Chinese translation is somewhat redundant for an AI agent but does not significantly harm conciseness or structure.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is relatively simple with two optional parameters and an output schema, so explaining return values is unnecessary. However, the description omits crucial details about the update semantics (whether it replaces or appends), which is essential for safe usage. This gap makes the description incomplete despite the existing schema and sibling context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already provides 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for both 'commands' and 'directories' parameters, including examples. The description only restates that these items are added to the blacklist, offering no additional semantics beyond what the schema already conveys. Thus, the baseline of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool updates the command and directory blacklist and specifies the action as adding blocked commands/directories. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_command_blacklist (read) and execute_command (run). However, the name says 'update' while the description says 'add', creating slight ambiguity about whether it replaces or appends to the blacklist.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for blocking commands/directories (e.g., add items to be blocked from execution/access), but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. It relies on the user to infer that this is the tool for modifying the blacklist.
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 downloaded files are automatically saved to the sandbox directory and stored securely, and it mentions support for HTTP methods and custom headers/body. However, it does not disclose return format, error handling, or overwrite behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is overly verbose, containing a redundant use-case list, a keyword list, and a full Chinese translation. It is front-loaded but includes repeated information (e.g., download from internet, saved to sandbox) that does not earn its place. A more concise version would be more effective.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is moderately complex with 7 parameters and an output schema. The description covers core functionality, use cases, storage location, and supported HTTP methods. It does not explain return values, but the presence of an output schema reduces the need for that. Minor gaps like error behavior could be added, but overall it is adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema covers 100% of parameters with detailed descriptions, including URL, path, method, headers, body, timeout, and skip_tls_verify. The tool description only adds that custom headers and request body are supported, which is already evident from the schema. Baseline 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb and resource: 'DOWNLOAD FILES from the internet using HTTP/HTTPS protocols.' It further enumerates specific use cases (downloading files, fetching remote resources, making HTTP requests), which helps distinguish it from local file operation tools like copy_file, move_file, and read_file.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly says 'Use this tool when you need to:' followed by a list of five concrete scenarios. This provides clear context for when to use the tool, though it does not 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 provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool checks both files and directories and returns a boolean, which covers the core behavior. However, it does not mention edge cases like symlinks, permission errors, or whether the path must be normalized, leaving some behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with two sentences followed by a bilingual translation. The English part is front-loaded and efficient, though the Chinese duplicate adds slight redundancy. Overall, it is appropriately sized with no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple nature of the tool (one parameter, boolean output schema), the description adequately covers the input, output behavior, and a usage context. No further details are strictly necessary for an agent to use this tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description covers 100% of the parameter with examples and a clear definition. The description only repeats 'specified path' without adding additional semantics, so it meets the baseline but adds no extra value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Check if' with an explicit resource 'file or directory' and path parameter. It clearly states the return value (true/false) and distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing solely on existence checking, unlike file_stat or search_files.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'Useful for conditional operations' provides some context for when to use the tool, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. Sibling tools like file_stat could potentially serve similar purposes, and no exclusions are given.
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 states that the tool 'Returns the current level (0-3) and its description,' which implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly confirm that there are no side effects or special authorization requirements. The range disclosure is helpful, but more detail about the behavioral nature (e.g., no permissions needed) would strengthen it.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single informative sentence in English, followed by a Chinese translation. While concise and front-loaded, the duplicate content in a second language is slightly redundant for an AI agent, but it does not detract significantly from clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple, zero-parameter getter with an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and return value. It does not explain the meaning of permission levels (e.g., what 0 vs 3 implies), but that is likely covered by the output schema. The description is adequate, though a note on typical use cases would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter meanings, and the schema's empty properties are consistent. No parameter-related gaps exist.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Get' and identifies the exact resource 'current command execution permission level', clearly distinguishing it from siblings like set_permission_level. It also specifies the return value (level 0-3 and its description), leaving no ambiguity about the tool's function.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it is preferable for checking current permissions before executing commands, nor does it contrast with set_permission_level or get_command_blacklist. The usage context is entirely implicit.
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 full burden of behavioral disclosure. However, it merely repeats the schema description and adds no unique behavioral details about overwrite behavior, permissions, or error handling. It only mentions the file-only restriction, which is already in the schema, offering no additional insight.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The English portion is concise and front-loaded, but the description duplicates the entire content in Chinese and includes repetitive keywords, making it longer than necessary. The redundancy reduces efficiency, though the core message is still clear.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the basic operation and file-only restriction, and an output schema exists, so return values are addressed. However, with no annotations, it lacks crucial context about overwrite behavior, path resolution, and error handling, leaving gaps for a mutation tool. It is minimally complete but not thorough.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has full descriptions for both source and destination (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description itself adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; it only restates the file-only constraint and path types without elaborating on format, resolution, or edge cases.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Move or rename specific file' with the explicit scope 'Only works on files, not directories', which distinguishes it from the sibling 'move' tool. It also provides a specific verb and resource, making the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly says 'Use 'move' tool if unsure about path type,' providing a clear alternative and when to use it. It also clarifies that directories are not supported, giving an explicit when-not-to-use signal. This is strong usage 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 must disclose behavior. It states the task will be terminated if still running, but does not cover edge cases like already-completed tasks, invalid IDs, or idempotency. The behavioral info is minimal but accurate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences (one English, one Chinese), front-loaded with the action. No wasted words, while providing the core behavioral guarantee.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With a single parameter, an output schema, and a clear description of the tool's effect, the description is sufficient for selecting and invoking the tool. Lacks explicit error/edge-case behavior but is not required for basic use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The sole parameter task_id is fully described in the schema (100% coverage), and the tool description adds no extra parameter details. Baseline 3 applies as schema carries the burden.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool cancels a running asynchronous command task, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like execute_command_async and get_command_task.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use it (when a task is running and needs cancellation) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. No reference to related tools 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 provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals important constraints: the new directory must exist and be within the sandbox. However, it does not mention what happens on failure (e.g., does it raise an error? leave cwd unchanged?) or that the change is stateful and affects subsequent command executions. This leaves some ambiguity for a state-changing operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. It consists of two short sentences (plus a bilingual translation) and every clause adds value: the action, the analogy, and the constraint. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with one parameter and an output schema, so the description covers the essential domain constraints. It could be slightly more complete by noting that it changes the session state for subsequent tool calls, but given the simplicity and schema richness, it is sufficiently complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already provides detailed parameter semantics, including absolute/relative paths, examples, and '..' usage, with 100% coverage. The description only repeats the constraint that the directory must exist and be within the sandbox, which is already in the schema description. Thus the description adds no significant value 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.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb and resource: 'Change the current working directory.' It also uses the 'cd' analogy for immediate recognition. This distinguishes it from all sibling tools, none of which modify the working directory.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage through the 'cd' analogy, which suggests using this tool when you need to change the current working directory for subsequent operations. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives (e.g., get_working_directory for checking) or provide exclusion criteria, so guidance is only implied.
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 behavioral context: commands run synchronously and wait for completion. However, it does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., commands can modify the filesystem), permission requirements, blacklist constraints, or output size limits. The description is not misleading but leaves significant behavioral aspects unrevealed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is reasonably sized but includes redundancy: the top-level description and the schema description are near-identical, and 'Common uses' plus 'Keywords' overlap heavily. The Chinese translation doubles the length, which may aid multilingual users but is not strictly concise. It is front-loaded with the core message, yet the keyword list and repetition make it less efficient than it could be.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (4 params, output schema present), the description covers the essential context: execution model (synchronous), common use cases, and an explicit exclusion. The schema provides parameter details and the output schema covers return values, so the description does not need to explain those. It lacks mention of sandbox/permission constraints, but overall it is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand when and how to use the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, and the schema itself provides detailed parameter semantics (e.g., args as separate list elements, timeout meaning, work_dir behavior). The main description does not add parameter-level information beyond what the schema already states. Therefore, the baseline score of 3 applies; the schema handles the heavy lifting and the description offers no additional clarification.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool executes shell commands synchronously and returns output. It specifies common use cases (git, npm, Python scripts, build tools) and explicitly differentiates from file operations, making its purpose unambiguous. The synchronous nature also distinguishes it from the sibling execute_command_async.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear usage context: 'Use for running CLI tools, build scripts, version control, package managers' and lists examples. It also gives an explicit exclusion with a pointer to alternatives: 'Do NOT use for file operations - use dedicated file tools instead.' However, it does not explicitly mention the sibling execute_command_async for background execution, even though 'synchronously' implies it. So it has clear context and one explicit alternative, but not full alternative coverage.
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. It clearly discloses what information is returned (size, permissions, modification time, type), which is useful. However, it does not mention error behavior (e.g., what happens if the path does not exist), access permission requirements, or symlink handling details. The read-only nature is implied by 'Get detailed information' but not explicitly stated.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, compact sentence that front-loads the core purpose. Even with the bilingual repetition, there is no wasted verbiage. Every part contributes to understanding the tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (one parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description is mostly complete. It even previews the return fields. It could be improved by mentioning potential errors or confirming it follows symlinks, but this is not essential given the output schema and simple nature.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 100% coverage for the single path parameter, including a clear description and examples. The tool description adds context about the kind of information returned, but it does not add additional meaning to the parameter itself. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description is specific and clear: it states the tool gets detailed information about a file or directory, listing the exact fields (size, permissions, modification time, type). It distinguishes from siblings like file_exists (which only checks existence) and list_directory (which lists contents).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage: when you need detailed metadata for a file/directory, use file_stat. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusions are given, so it is implied rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- 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 what information will be returned (status, output, start time, duration), but does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or mention any side effects, permissions, or rate limits. Since it's a simple read operation, the lack of such detail is minimally problematic, but the description adds little beyond the obvious.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, and includes a bilingual translation that is redundant but not harmful. Every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple and an output schema exists, so return values are covered elsewhere. The description sufficiently covers the purpose, the targeted resource, and the information delivered. It doesn't address error cases or alternative tools, but these are not required for the tool's simplicity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already fully documents the single parameter task_id with description and examples, so the description adds no additional parameter semantics. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Get' and identifies the resource as 'asynchronous command task,' clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like cancel_command_task and execute_command_async. It also lists the key data fields (status, output, start time, duration), leaving no ambiguity about the tool's function.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies its use case: when you need details about a specific async task. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives like cancel_command_task, nor does it mention any usage prerequisites or exclusions. 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 full burden. It adds a useful behavioral trait: 'Automatically detects file/directory type and handles appropriately.' However, it omits other important behaviors such as overwrite semantics, error handling, or permission requirements, which are common concerns for move operations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is repetitive, including the same content in English and Chinese, a redundant keywords list, and a separate schema description that mostly duplicates the top-level description. While the opening sentence is clear, the overall text is disproportionately long and not concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple (2 parameters) and the schema fully documents the parameters. The description covers purpose, usage, and auto-detection, but lacks details about overwrite behavior and return values. The presence of an output schema mitigates the need to describe returns, so it is adequate but not thorough.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with detailed descriptions and examples for both source and destination. The description adds little beyond the schema, merely reinforcing that the tool auto-detects file/directory types, which the schema already states. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb+resource: 'MOVE or RENAME files and directories', and explicitly positions it as the 'MAIN move/rename tool' with a recommendation label, distinguishing it from sibling tools like move_file and move_directory.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It provides explicit usage context: 'use for ALL move and rename operations' and lists five concrete use cases. It also includes keywords to aid retrieval, effectively telling the agent to prefer this tool over alternatives. The 'use for all' instruction is strong enough to guide selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains the level semantics but does not disclose side effects, persistence, scope, or whether authorization is required. For a mutation tool, this gap is significant.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded with the core action. The second sentence adds essential context about the level scale. No redundant or unnecessary information is present.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple setter with one parameter, rich schema, and an output schema, the description is mostly complete. It lacks details about post-set behavior or effects, but the low complexity and structured fields reduce the need for extensive description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, and the parameter description in the schema already details level meanings (0: Read-only, 1: Basic write, 2: Extended write, 3: Full access). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Set the command execution permission level.' It specifies the resource (command execution permission level) and the action (set), and distinguishes it from the sibling tool get_permission_level by focusing on the write operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context by explaining that higher levels allow more privileged operations and defines the level range (0-3). It implies use when needing to adjust permissions, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria.
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 provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It clearly states the tool automatically detects file vs. directory type and performs recursive deletion for directories, which are key behavioral traits. It does not mention irreversibility or permission requirements, but the core destructive behavior is adequately disclosed for a delete operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is redundant and verbose. It repeats the 'RECOMMENDED - PRIMARY DELETION TOOL' phrase, includes a long keywords list, and has both English and Chinese sections that restate the same information. The content could be condensed to a few sentences without losing meaning, making it less efficient for an agent to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter delete tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, when to use it, and key behavioral details (auto-detection, recursive deletion). It lacks some safety warnings (e.g., permanence) but is otherwise complete enough for an agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, and the input schema already provides a detailed description of the 'path' parameter, including examples and explanation. The tool description adds little beyond that, repeating the auto-detection concept but not introducing new parameter semantics. The baseline of 3 is appropriate given the schema handles parameter documentation well.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies this as the primary deletion tool for any file or directory, with a specific verb ('DELETE'), explicit resource ('any file or directory'), and distinct positioning as the 'MAIN deletion tool' versus sibling tools like delete_file and delete_directory. It also states the auto-detection behavior, which differentiates it from type-specific deletion tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly says 'use for ALL deletion operations' and lists concrete use cases (remove files, directories, temp files, build artifacts, old backups), giving clear context for when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, falling short of a full when/when-not 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, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It states that a list of commands with results is returned, which is basic behavioral information. However, it does not mention ordering, permissions, or any side effects, though the tool appears read-only.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, two sentences, with no redundant wording except for the translation. It is front-loaded with the main action and return type, suitable for quick understanding.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read-only tool with one optional parameter and a defined output schema, the description is complete. It covers the essential purpose and return value; the schema handles parameter details and the output schema defines return structure.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The only parameter 'limit' is fully described in the input schema with a clear description and examples. The tool description adds no further parameter detail, but schema coverage is 100%, so this is adequate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's action ('Get the history of executed commands') and its output ('Returns a list of previously executed commands with their results'). It distinguishes from siblings like clear_command_history and execute_command.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage by defining the tool's purpose, but does not explicitly mention when to use it over alternatives or any exclusions. The context suggests it is for retrieving past command executions, but no direct 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful traits: 'Each path is processed independently' and 'report success/failure for each item.' However, it does not disclose whether deletions are permanent, require special permissions, or are irreversible, which is a critical gap for a destructive tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The English description is two sentences and front-loaded with the core function. The inclusion of a full Chinese translation is duplicative but not harmful; however, it slightly reduces conciseness since it repeats the same content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is complete for a simple, one-parameter tool. Since an output schema exists, the description doesn't need to explain return values. It explains what the tool does and how it handles multiple paths, which is sufficient for the agent to invoke it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, with a clear description of the 'paths' parameter and examples. The description only restates what the schema already says ('each path will be processed independently'), adding no new semantic meaning.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb and resource: 'Delete multiple files or directories in a single operation.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'delete', 'delete_file', and 'delete_directory' by explicitly focusing on batch operations on multiple paths.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for batch deletions ('multiple files or directories'), which clearly separates it from single-item delete tools. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, 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.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the critical behavior 'Automatically creates all parent directories (like 'mkdir -p')', which is non-obvious and important for the agent to know. It does not mention edge cases like existing directories or permissions, but the core behavior is well-covered.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded but contains redundancy: the first sentence and the 'Use for' section overlap in meaning. The keywords list and Chinese translation are nice for search/localization but add length without contributing new conceptual information. It is not overly long but could be tighter.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple (1 param, output schema provided). The description covers the main purpose, key behavior, and use cases well. It lacks details on error handling or idempotency, but for a basic create-directory tool the description is sufficiently complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% (as noted in context signals), and the schema already explains the 'path' parameter clearly with examples and behavior. The tool description adds no extra parameter detail beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb and resource: 'CREATE NEW DIRECTORIES and folder structures.' It also specifies the key behavior of automatically creating parent directories, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_file. The purpose is unmistakable and differentiates well.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit use cases: 'Use for creating folders, setting up directory structures, organizing project layout.' This gives clear when-to-use guidance, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools. Context from siblings implies the distinction, so it's clear but not exhaustive.
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 directory-only constraint and the optional recursive behavior, but it does not explicitly state that deletion is permanent, irreversible, or that recursive=true is the default. For a destructive operation, more explicit caution would improve transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The English portion is concise and front-loaded, but the Chinese translation duplicates the English content without adding information. This redundancy means the description isn't as tight as it could be, though it remains short overall.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple two-parameter tool, 100% schema coverage, and existence of an output schema, the description covers the essential use cases and constraints. It could mention the permanent nature of deletion or the default recursive behavior, but those are partially implied by the tool name and schema, so the description is fairly complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, and the description does not add meaningful parameter-specific details beyond what the schema already provides. The phrase 'optionally all its contents' paraphrases the recursive parameter but adds no new semantics; the schema already explains defaults and behavior.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Delete a directory and optionally all its contents.' It specifies the resource (directory) and distinguishes it from file deletion by noting 'Only works on directories, not files.' The reference to the 'delete' tool for ambiguous paths further clarifies its scope relative to siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit guidance: 'Only works on directories, not files' and 'Use ‘delete’ tool if you’re unsure whether the path is a file or directory.' This tells the agent exactly when to choose this tool over the generic delete tool, satisfying the need for 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 provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly states the tool 'gets' and 'returns' the path, implying a read-only operation with no side effects. But it does not mention potential error conditions, permission requirements, or any edge cases, which could matter in some contexts.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded with the core information. However, it includes a redundant bilingual repetition ('/ 获取当前工作目录路径...') that adds no new value for an AI agent, reducing efficiency slightly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is very simple with no parameters and an output schema. The description explicitly states the return value (absolute path), which is sufficient for the agent to understand the tool's behavior. No important information is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the description does not need to explain any. The baseline of 4 is appropriate because there is nothing to add and the schema already captures the parameterless nature.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Get') and a clear resource ('current working directory path'), and further clarifies it returns the absolute path. This distinguishes it from related sibling tools like change_directory or list_directory, which have different purposes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is implied by the tool's purpose: it is the tool to call when you need the current working directory path. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or references to alternatives, leaving some ambiguity in tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral transparency. It discloses the directory-only constraint and the move/rename operation, but does not mention overwrite behavior, permissions, or error handling. For a mutation tool, this is a moderate gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The core message is delivered in two concise sentences, front-loaded with the operation and scope. The addition of keywords and bilingual text adds minor noise but does not detract significantly from clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple, has an output schema, and fully documented parameters. The description covers the main operation and alternatives, but omits important behavioral details such as overwrite semantics and error conditions. Adequate but not comprehensive.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 100% description coverage for both parameters, with clear descriptions for source and destination. The description reinforces that the path must be a directory, but adds little beyond what the schema already states. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Move or rename directory.' It explicitly scopes the tool to directories only, distinguishing it from sibling tools like move_file and move. This is a specific verb+resource with clear differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use 'move' tool if unsure about path type,' naming an alternative tool for ambiguous cases. It also clarifies the tool is for directories only, implying when it should be used versus file-specific 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 provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states the tool reads and retrieves complete content, implying a non-destructive operation. However, it does not disclose error handling (e.g., missing file) or performance characteristics, though for a simple read tool the description is sufficiently transparent about its core behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description includes a clear first sentence, but it is somewhat verbose with a repeated keyword list and bilingual content. There is redundancy between the description and the schema's description, and the keyword list is not essential. The structure is acceptable but not maximally concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with one parameter and an output schema present, so the description does not need to explain return values. It covers purpose, usage scenarios, and distinguishes from siblings. The lack of error handling or permission notes is a minor gap, but overall the description is complete for this tool's complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% and the parameter 'path' is thoroughly documented with examples and constraints. The description adds little beyond the schema (mostly repeating the purpose), 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.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the tool as a file reader: 'READ AND RETRIEVE complete file content' and labels it the 'Primary tool for reading files'. It is explicitly differentiated from sibling tools like write_file, search_files, and file_stat by stating it retrieves complete content, 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 Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear usage context: 'use whenever you need to see what's inside a file' and lists specific use cases (viewing, inspecting, checking before modification). It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool, but the 'Primary tool' designation and examples effectively guide selection over alternatives.
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 the tool copies directories recursively ('all contents') and is restricted to directories. However, it does not explain behavior on overwriting existing destinations, whether the destination is created automatically, or error handling for non-existent sources. For a copy operation, this is moderate transparency but lacks edge-case details.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The English portion is concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. The bilingual repetition and keyword list add some redundancy but do not harm clarity significantly. The structure is efficient, with each sentence serving a distinct role: purpose, constraint, and alternative guidance.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple (copy directory). The description covers the primary function, the critical type constraint, and the alternative. An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. Missing details like overwrite behavior are minor given the tool's simplicity and the presence of sibling differentiation. Overall, the description is sufficiently complete for correct tool selection and use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema descriptions for 'source' and 'destination' already provide full coverage (100%) of parameter meaning, including the directory-only constraint. The tool description adds little beyond the schema's wording, reinforcing 'all contents' but not introducing new parameter-specific semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action: 'Copy directory and all contents to new location.' It specifies the resource (directory) and scope (all contents), and explicitly distinguishes from the 'copy' tool by stating it only works on directories, not files. This makes the purpose unambiguous and differentiates it from siblings like 'copy' and 'copy_file'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit usage guidance: 'Only works on directories, not files. Use 'copy' tool if unsure about path type.' This directly tells the agent when to use this tool versus the alternative 'copy' tool, which is precisely what the dimension requires.
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 must carry the full burden. It discloses the key file-only restriction, but does not mention overwrite behavior, permission requirements, or what happens if the source does not exist. This is a meaningful gap, though the description does add useful context beyond a bare 'copy file' statement.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded with the core action and constraints, but includes redundant keywords and a full bilingual repetition of the same information. It remains concise and structured, but the extra content is not strictly necessary, preventing a perfect score.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple 2-parameter copy tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, limitation, and alternative. It omits some behavioral details like overwrite semantics, but given the schema richness and simplicity of the tool, it is nearly complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters already described with clarity and examples. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning; it only repeats the file-only constraint already in the schema. Baseline 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Copy specific file to new location', identifying the specific verb, resource, and scope. It also distinguishes from siblings by explicitly limiting to files and referencing 'copy' for uncertain path types, which differentiates it from copy_directory and copy.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It explicitly states 'Only works on files, not directories' and advises using 'copy' if unsure about path type. This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance, with an explicit alternative tool named.
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 burden. It discloses the async background execution, immediate task ID return, and ability to check status/output/cancel. It does not mention permission implications, but the core behavior is well communicated.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The English text is two concise sentences, but the Chinese translation duplicates the content without adding new information. Still, it is not verbose and front-loads the key behavior.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given an output schema exists, the description appropriately focuses on the async workflow. It explains the task ID mechanism and long-running use case, which is sufficient for selection. It could mention how to cancel or get status, but sibling tools cover those.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for all parameters. The tool description adds no parameter-specific details beyond the schema, which is the baseline for this dimension.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it executes a command asynchronously in the background and returns a task ID. It distinguishes from the sibling 'execute_command' by highlighting the async behavior and long-running use case.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly says 'Use this for long-running commands,' giving a clear context. It does not name alternatives like 'execute_command' for synchronous use, but the sibling list provides that distinction.
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 must convey the tool's behavior. It indicates a read-only operation via 'Get' and 'Returns lists,' but adds no further context about permissions, sorting, format, or potential side effects. For a simple getter, 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, consisting of two short sentences (in English and Chinese) that directly state the action and the return value. It is front-loaded with the key verb 'Get' and resource, and every word serves a purpose without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simple nature (no parameters, read-only, with an output schema), the description is sufficiently complete. It conveys what the tool returns and the scope (current blacklist). With an output schema available, there is no need for the description to detail return fields.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter meanings since there are none. The schema already confirms no parameters, and the description adds no additional parameter-related information beyond the tool's purpose.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Get the current command and directory blacklist.' It specifies the resource (command and directory blacklist) and the action (get), and the return content (lists of blocked commands and directories). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_command_blacklist.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is for reading the current blacklist, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or provide any exclusions. Given the presence of update_command_blacklist, the intended use is implied but not articulated. No explicit guidance is offered.
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 provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses recursive traversal through all subdirectories and glob wildcard syntax, which covers the key behavioral aspects. The wording 'SEARCH AND FIND' implies a non-mutating read operation, but it could be more explicit about not modifying files.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded with essential information, but includes redundant keywords ('search, find, locate, grep files, filter') and a verbatim Chinese translation that adds length without new content. Still, it remains fairly concise and well-organized.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers use cases, wildcard syntax, recursion, and examples. Since an output schema exists, return format need not be described. Missing edge cases like symlink handling or case sensitivity, but these are not critical for a search tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with detailed explanations and examples for both path and pattern. The description adds keywords and reinforces glob mechanics, but does not introduce new semantic information beyond what the schema already provides, 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.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'SEARCH AND FIND files matching patterns' with recursive glob search, which distinguishes it from list_directory and file_exists. The verb+resource+scope is 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 Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides explicit use cases like 'Use for finding files by extension, locating specific files by name pattern' and lists keywords. However, it does not mention alternative tools or when not to use this tool, so guidance is clear but lacks 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It explicitly discloses irreversibility ('cannot be undone'), which is critical for a destructive operation. However, it doesn't mention side effects like whether current running history is affected or permission requirements.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two short sentences (English and Chinese), front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word earns its place, and the irreversibility warning is essential.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (no params, simple output), the description covers the essential context: what it does and the irreversible nature. It could mention whether it clears history for current user or all users, but this is a minor gap for a straightforward clear operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so baseline is 4. The description adds meaning by explaining the scope ('all history records') and irreversibility, which is sufficient for a parameterless tool.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Clear') and specific resource ('all command execution history records'), making the action unmistakable. It also implies destructive scope ('all') and distinguishes from sibling tools like get_command_history (read-only).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description clearly states the action but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, fallback scenarios, or situations to avoid, though the 'cannot be undone' warning implies cautious use.
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 provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that parent directories are created automatically and that content 'will completely replace any existing file content,' which discloses the destructive behavior. It does not cover permissions or error cases, but for a file creation tool these are the key behaviors.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded with the core purpose, then provides usage context, and includes keywords for search. It is slightly longer than necessary due to a redundant Chinese translation and keyword repetition, but each section serves a purpose and there is no wasted filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with only two parameters and a provided output schema. The description covers the purpose, when to use it, key behavioral traits (auto-create directories, overwrite), and parameter semantics via the schema. It is complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with both path and content having detailed descriptions and examples. The tool description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema—it repeats that content replaces existing files and that parent directories are created, but these are already in the schema. Thus a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb and resource: 'CREATE A NEW FILE with specified content.' It also distinguishes itself as the 'Primary tool for file creation' and explicitly says 'use whenever you need to create or completely replace a file's content,' which differentiates it from siblings like write_file.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear when-to-use guidance: 'use whenever you need to create or completely replace a file's content.' It also calls itself the 'Primary tool for file creation,' implying priority over siblings. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives like write_file, so it stops short of a perfect score.
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 provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses behavioral traits: returns formatted datetime, timezone info, Unix timestamp, and explains timezone optionality (system local if not provided). It doesn't explicitly state non-destructiveness, but the nature of the tool makes it evident. Good coverage for a simple read-only operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is reasonably concise and front-loaded with the purpose, then return values, then use cases. It includes keywords and a Chinese translation, which add slight redundancy but do not bloat it excessively. It earns a score above average for its clear structure despite minor repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description is complete. It covers use cases, return data, timezone behavior, and falls back to system local time when appropriate. Nothing essential is missing, and the output schema handles return-value details.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, and the schema already provides a thorough explanation of the 'timezone' parameter including IANA examples, optionality, and default behavior. The description text only mentions 'timezone support' without adding meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb and resource: 'GET CURRENT DATE AND TIME with timezone support.' It also enumerates the exact return values (formatted datetime, timezone info, Unix timestamp), making it unambiguous. Sibling tools are all file/command related, so this tool stands out distinctly as the time/date utility.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit use cases: 'Use for getting current time, checking time in different timezones, timestamps for logging,' and the schema adds scheduling and time-based operations. It gives clear when-to-use guidance, though it doesn't mention when not to use it or alternatives—which are unnecessary given the absence of competing 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 to rely on, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It states that the tool 'Shows all files and subdirectories with detailed information,' and the schema description adds that it includes names, types, sizes, and modification times. This is adequate for a read-only listing tool, though it does not mention edge cases like hidden files or symlink handling.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and is reasonably concise. However, it includes redundant phrases ('LIST AND EXPLORE directory contents' and 'Shows all files and subdirectories with detailed information') and a full Chinese translation, which makes it slightly longer than necessary but still efficient and well-organized.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, clear purpose) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers all necessary context. It explains what the tool does, when to use it, and what information is returned. The sibling tools context further clarifies its role in directory exploration, making the description complete for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool description itself does not elaborate on the path parameter, but the input schema provides comprehensive details including examples ('.', 'src/', '/home/user/projects') and a thorough description. With 100% schema coverage, the description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, 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.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('LIST AND EXPLORE') and resource ('directory contents'), and explicitly says it shows all files and subdirectories with detailed information. It also identifies itself as the 'primary tool for directory exploration,' distinguishing it from sibling tools like read_file or search_files.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for when to use the tool ('Use for seeing what files are in a directory, exploring project structure'). The input schema expands on this with five specific use cases, such as finding specific files and checking directory contents before operations. No exclusions are mentioned, but the guidance is sufficient for an agent to decide when to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
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 transparently states that writing completely replaces the existing content and that the file must already exist (via the path parameter description). This discloses the destructive nature of the operation. However, it doesn't mention what happens if the file does not exist, permissions required, or whether changes are atomic, but for a simple file write, this is adequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded with the key action, but includes redundant elements: the Chinese translation duplicates the English content, and the keyword list repeats information already in the description and schema. While structured logically (action, workflow, distinction), it could be more concise by removing the bilingual duplication and excessive keywords. It earns a 3 for being somewhat verbose but still organized.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple (2 params) and has a rich output schema, so the description need not cover return values. It covers the core aspects: what it does, the destructive replacement, the required existence of the file, and the recommended workflow. For a write tool, this is quite complete, though it could mention error cases (e.g., file not found) for extra clarity. Overall, it's contextually complete for the complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100% and both parameters (path and content) have detailed descriptions with examples. The tool description adds little beyond the schema for parameter semantics; it repeats the replacement behavior but doesn't add new parameter-specific meaning. The baseline of 3 is appropriate since schema carries the load.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's action ('WRITE OR UPDATE content to existing file') with the specific effect of completely replacing current content. It explicitly distinguishes itself from 'create_file' for new files, and the verb 'write' is specific to the resource. This makes the purpose unambiguous and differentiates it from sibling tools like read_file and create_file.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit usage guidance: it tells the agent to read the file first, modify content, then write back, and directly instructs to use 'create_file' for new files. This clearly indicates when to use this tool versus the alternative. The keyword list also reinforces the intended use cases (update, modify, save, edit).
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 discloses a useful behavioral constraint (files only) but omits mentioning that deletion is permanent or irreversible, and does not address permissions or side effects, leaving a moderate transparency gap for a destructive operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded with the main action. The bilingual repetition is a minor addition but does not introduce redundancy for the intended audience, and every sentence serves a clear purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple single-parameter deletion tool with an output schema available, the description adequately covers the purpose, the file-only constraint, and the alternative tool, making it contextually complete without needing to explain return values.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already provides a complete description and examples for the 'path' parameter, including the file-only restriction. The tool description repeats this without adding new parameter semantics, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb and resource ('Delete a specific file'), and explicitly differentiates it from siblings by noting it only works on files, not directories, and directs users to the 'delete' tool for uncertain cases.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit when-to-use guidance by stating 'Only works on files, not directories' and naming the 'delete' tool as an alternative when the path type is unknown, making the decision between tools clear.
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?
There are no annotations, so the description must carry the full burden. It clearly describes what the tool returns and implies a read-only, non-mutating operation. It does not explicitly state that it never modifies anything or mention permissions, but for a system-info tool the behavior is well conveyed by the phrase 'GET COMPREHENSIVE SYSTEM INFORMATION' and the list of returned data.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded with the core statement, but it repeats itself through a keyword list and a full bilingual (Chinese) version. The keywords like 'system info, hardware, specs, os info, cpu, memory, ram, gpu' add little value for an AI agent and could be removed for conciseness. It is not tight; approximately half the content is redundant.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that the tool has no parameters and an output schema is present, the description only needs to explain what the tool does and when to use it. It does both thoroughly, covering the full scope of system information returned. No gaps remain 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.
Parameters4/5Does 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 correctly adds no parameter-specific syntax since none exist. The input schema confirms 0 properties, so nothing more is needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with 'GET COMPREHENSIVE SYSTEM INFORMATION about current machine' and explicitly lists the returned categories (OS, CPU, memory, GPU, network interfaces). This makes the tool's purpose unmistakable and distinguishes it from all sibling tools, which are file/command operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit use cases: 'checking system specs, verifying hardware capabilities, getting OS info, checking available resources.' It does not mention when-not-to-use or alternatives, but the sibling list contains no similar system-info tools, so this is clear enough. It could be a 5 if it explicitly excluded cases like performance benchmarking, but a 4 is fair.
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 provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: automatic file/directory detection and recursive copy for directories. However, it omits overwrite behavior and error handling, which leaves some ambiguity, but the disclosed behaviors are meaningful and helpful.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded with a recommendation tag and conveys its role in three sentences followed by keywords. The bilingual translation adds redundancy but is not excessive. It remains concise and scannable, earning a 4.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a 2-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, and key behaviors. It clearly positions itself as the main copy tool among siblings, making it complete enough for correct selection and invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% with detailed descriptions and examples for both 'source' and 'destination'. The tool description does not add parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, 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.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'COPY files or directories to new location.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like copy_file and copy_directory by declaring 'MAIN copy tool - use for ALL copy operations' and 'Automatically detects file/directory type and handles appropriately.' This makes 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 Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly says 'use for ALL copy operations' and provides concrete use cases in the schema description (duplicate files, create backups, copy entire directories, clone project structures). This gives explicit when-to-use guidance and implies alternatives are not needed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
GitHub Badge
Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:
- Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
- Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
- Evaluate tool definition quality.
Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.
Card Badge
Copy to your README.md:
Score Badge
Copy to your README.md:
Latest Blog Posts
- Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)By Om-Shree-0709 on .mcpAgent IdentityOAuth 2.1
- Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an InternBy Om-Shree-0709 on .Agent IdentityMCP SecurityOAuth Delegation
- Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)By Om-Shree-0709 on .Agentic AiPrompt InjectionWebAssembly
MCP directory API
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/shibingli/mcp-toolkit'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server