roadmap-skill
Server Quality Checklist
Latest release: v0.3.0
- Disambiguation4/5
Most tools are clearly distinct in action and resource. A few pairs like update_task vs update_dependency_view_node could be confused based on names, but descriptions clarify the difference. Overall, the tool set is well-differentiated.
Naming Consistency5/5All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern, including batch_ and *_by_tag conventions. The naming style is uniform and predictable.
Tool Count2/5At 31 tools, the server exceeds the 25+ threshold, which feels heavy even for a broad roadmap scope. While each tool has a purpose, the count could be streamlined by consolidating some batch operations.
Completeness4/5The server provides full CRUD for projects, tasks, tags, and dependency views, plus analysis and web UI control. Minor gaps like a missing get_tag or project-level task reassignment exist, but they are not critical for roadmap workflows.
Average 3.5/5 across 31 of 31 tools scored. Lowest: 1.9/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- 1 of 2 community issues answered or closed in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add
glama.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
- Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says 'open' but doesn't describe side effects, whether it starts a server, opens a browser, returns a URL, blocks execution, or requires permissions. This is as opaque as a tautology, providing no behavioral insight beyond the literal word.
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 only four words and lacks substantive content. While it is short, this is under-specification rather than concise efficiency. There is no structure to speak of, and the brevity fails to earn its place by omitting all useful detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's role in opening a web interface, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't mention how to access the interface (e.g., URL), what it displays, whether it runs asynchronous, or how to stop it. A complete description would need to cover at least these basics, and the lack of annotations or output schema makes this gap worse.
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 fully documents the single 'port' parameter with a default value, so high schema coverage leads to a baseline of 3. The description adds no parameter information, which is acceptable since the schema covers it completely.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Open web visualization interface' gives a verb and a vague resource, but it doesn't specify what the visualization shows, how it is accessed, or what 'open' entails. It is nearly a restatement of the tool name and offers minimal differentiation from siblings, only differing by the word 'visualization'.
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?
No usage context is provided. The description gives no indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no mention of pairing with close_web_interface. It simply states an action without any situational guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. The description only states the action without any mention of side effects, permissions, validation rules, reversibility, or response format. For a mutating operation, this is a significant transparency gap.
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 a single concise sentence and is front-loaded with the core purpose. However, it is under-specified; it lacks the necessary details that would make it appropriately sized for a tool with this complexity. It is shorter than typical descriptions and sacrifices informative content for brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has five parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and the description is only one sentence, it is highly incomplete. The description fails to provide any context about parameter behaviors, return values, or use cases, leaving agents with insufficient information to correctly invoke the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any of the five parameters (name, color, tagId, projectId, description). Since the schema only lists parameter names and types, and the description adds no semantics, agents are left without guidance on how to set or interpret these parameters.
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 'Update an existing tag' clearly identifies the action (update) and resource (tag), and the word 'existing' implies this tool is not for creation, distinguishing it from create_tag. However, it does not elaborate on what fields can be updated or provide any additional context that would differentiate it from other update tools like update_task or update_project.
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 any prerequisites, conditions for use, or situations where another tool like create_tag or delete_tag would be more appropriate. There is no explicit 'when' or 'when not to use' 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?
The description discloses a useful behavioral trait: it returns a summary by default and full data when verbose=true. However, with no annotations provided, it carries the full burden of transparency. It omits side effects (e.g., persistence, idempotency), permission requirements, or error behavior, which are important for a create 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 extremely concise: two short sentences that front-load the primary purpose and then give a key usage tip. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or repetition.
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?
Given the tool has 6 parameters, 5 required, an enum, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far too sparse. It fails to clarify the types of projects that can be created, the format/purpose of dates, or what the 'summary' and 'full data' actually contain. An agent would lack critical information to invoke the tool correctly and interpret the response.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for explaining parameters. It only explains the 'verbose' parameter, while ignoring name, description, projectType, startDate, and targetDate. The schema's enum for projectType is not mentioned, and the meaning of date fields or required fields is left unexplained. This is a significant gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear action ('Create') and a resource ('project roadmap'), but the qualifier 'roadmap' is misleading because the schema's projectType enum allows 'roadmap', 'skill-tree', or 'kanban'. This narrows the tool's capability inaccurately and could cause an agent to think only roadmap projects can be created.
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 like update_project or create_task. It does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only says 'Delete', which implies a destructive action, but does not mention permanence, cascading effects, or any side effects. This is a minimal disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, compact sentence with no redundant words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it easy to parse.
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?
For a destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not clarify whether the deletion is reversible, what happens to associated data, or any preconditions. The context is incomplete for an agent to safely invoke it.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It says 'by ID', which merely echoes the parameter name projectId without adding new meaning. The schema already indicates the parameter is a required string, so the description adds no additional semantic value.
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 (delete) and the resource (project) with a specific method (by ID). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like delete_task and delete_tag by naming 'project' explicitly.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as update_project or delete_task. The description simply states what it does without any context on prerequisites or situations where it should be invoked.
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 exist, so the description carries the full burden. It merely states 'Delete a tag' without disclosing consequences like permanent removal, cascading effects on tasks, or permission requirements. The behavior is implied but not elaborated.
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 concise sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and efficient, though it does not provide extra context that could be added without bloat.
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?
For a simple delete operation with two required parameters, the description is minimally viable. It states the action and the identifiers, but lacks any note about return values, error handling, or side effects. Given the absence of annotations and output schema, this is adequate but with clear gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, and the description only mentions 'project ID and tag ID' without explaining the role or format of each parameter. It adds minimal semantic value beyond the raw parameter names in 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 ('Delete') and resource ('tag'), and explicitly names the two identifying keys ('project ID and tag ID'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_task or delete_project.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., update_tag, list_tags). There is no mention of prerequisites, such as whether the tag must exist or whether deletion is permanent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but it does not clarify potential limitations such as pagination, exact-match behavior of tagName, error conditions, or whether the response includes full task objects. Minimal value is added beyond the name itself.
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 clear sentence that conveys the core functionality without any fluff. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, and every word earns its place.
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?
Given the tool has no output schema and no annotations, the description should provide context about return values or edge cases. It only states what the tool does but not what the output looks like or how it handles missing keys. This falls short of being complete for a straightforward retrieval tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate by explaining the parameters. It only mentions 'specific tag' (hinting at tagName) and completely omits projectId, providing no semantic meaning for either parameter beyond what the schema already shows (names and minLength).
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' with a defined resource and scope: 'all tasks that have a specific tag'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_task (single task) and list_tasks (all tasks), making the tool's purpose immediately evident.
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 retrieving tasks filtered by tag, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like list_tasks or get_task. There are no exclusions or alternative suggestions, so the usage context is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds one useful behavioral note (deterministic color generation when omitted), but with no annotations, it fails to disclose other important traits such as idempotency, duplicate handling, authentication requirements, or response/error behavior. The burden on the description is high and only partially met.
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 concise sentence that front-loads the core action. However, it could have added brief usage guidance without becoming verbose, so it is efficient but slightly under-specified.
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?
For a simple create operation, the description covers the primary action and one behavioral nuance, but it omits return value, error semantics, duplicate-tag behavior, and prerequisites. Without annotations or an output schema, the description is too sparse to fully inform an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate by explaining parameters. It only clarifies the 'color' behavior (generated deterministically) but provides no added meaning for 'name', 'projectId', or 'description'. The schema's patterns and defaults are present but the description does not expand on their intent or usage.
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 'Create' and the resource 'tag in a project', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_tag, delete_tag, and list_tags. It precisely identifies the tool's core action and scope.
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 'in a project' gives contextual scope, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or any exclusions/prerequisites. Usage is implied rather than directly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Delete a task' without stating whether the deletion is permanent, cascading, requires permissions, or has side effects on related entities like tags or dependency views. This is a significant 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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It communicates the essential action and parameters efficiently, earning its place without padding.
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?
This is a simple deletion tool with two parameters and no output schema or annotations. However, the description omits critical context: it doesn't explain return values, error scenarios, whether deletion is permanent or reversible, or any relationships to other resources. Given the destructive nature, the description should provide more safety-related 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?
The description adds meaning to the parameters by indicating that 'project ID' and 'task ID' are the identifiers used to locate the task. Since schema_description_coverage is 0%, this partial explanation is helpful, but it doesn't provide further context such as where to find these IDs or any constraints beyond the schema's minLength.
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 ('Delete') and resource ('a task'), and identifies the two identifiers needed (project ID and task ID). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_task, update_task, and batch_update_tasks, 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 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 exclusions, prerequisites, or situations where a different tool (e.g., batch update or dependency view removal) might be more appropriate. The agent is left to infer usage solely from the tool name and description.
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?
Since no annotations are given, the description must carry the full behavioral disclosure burden. It implies read-only via 'list' but does not mention whether tags returned include archived ones, any ordering, pagination, authentication needs, or what the response format is. This is minimal behavioral context beyond the tool name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clean sentence that is front-loaded with the key information. No unnecessary words or repetitions.
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?
For a one-parameter list tool, the description covers the essential purpose. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it lacks any mention of return value shape, empty list behavior, or error cases. It also does not position the tool relative to its siblings, leaving moderate gaps for an otherwise simple tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has a single parameter projectId with no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description says 'in a project' which loosely connects to projectId, but it does not explicitly state that projectId is the identifier of the project whose tags should be listed. This adds only marginal meaning beyond the parameter name and type.
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 'List all tags in a project' uses a specific verb (list), a resource (tags), and a scope (project), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_tag, update_tag, and delete_tag. It precisely communicates 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?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_tasks_by_tag or list_tasks. The description only states what the tool does, with no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or when a different tool would be more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. 'Close web visualization interface' merely restates the tool's name and offers no additional behavioral context such as side effects, reversibility, or resource cleanup.
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, direct sentence that conveys the tool's purpose without wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple action.
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?
For a zero-parameter tool with no annotations or output schema, the description is minimally viable but lacks context about what closing entails or its relationship to open_web_interface. It is adequate but leaves gaps.
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 schema is empty and the description needs no parameter explanations.
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 'Close' and the resource 'web visualization interface'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like open_web_interface by specifying the opposite action.
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. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only restates the delete action and IDs, but does not mention that deletion is permanent, potential cascading effects, or any other side effects, leaving the agent without important behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no fluff. Every word is functional and it is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.
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?
For a simple delete tool with two required parameters and no annotations, the description is adequate but lacks warnings about irreversibility or side effects on dependent data. It does not explain the outcome or any error conditions, so while it covers the basics, it leaves gaps for a tool that permanently deletes a resource.
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 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does mention both parameters by name and clarifies the relationship (view is scoped by project), but it does not provide formats, constraints, or examples. This adds minimal meaning beyond the parameter names.
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 ('Delete') and a clear resource ('dependency planning view'), and identifies the required identifiers ('by project ID and view ID'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_dependency_view, get_dependency_view, and update_dependency_view.
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, no context on prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. It simply states the action without any situational advice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does mention the default return behavior (summary plus changed ids) and the verbose option, but does not disclose side effects such as irreversibility or impact on the view structure.
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 long, front-loaded with the primary action, and contains no redundant information. Every word adds value.
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?
With 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should provide more detail on parameter semantics, when to use this tool versus similar ones, and the consequences of the operation. The return behavior is mentioned, but other essential context is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no explanation of the parameters (projectId, viewId, edgeId, verbose). It relies entirely on parameter names, which is insufficient for an agent to construct a valid call.
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: 'Remove a dependency edge from a dependency planning view.' This uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like add_dependency_view_edge and update_dependency_view_edge.
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 want to remove an edge) but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives. Given siblings like remove_task_from_dependency_view, there is ambiguity about edge vs task removal that is not addressed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return behavior (summary by default, verbose=true for full data), which is useful, but it omits critical behavioral details such as whether this is a partial or full update, permissions required, or side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two concise sentences with no filler. It front-loads the action and resources, and the second sentence adds meaningful information about return modes.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (8 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage), the description is too sparse. It does not explain update semantics, enum meanings, required fields, or error scenarios, leaving the agent with insufficient context for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, requiring the description to compensate. It only explains the verbose parameter's effect; the other seven parameters lack additional semantic context beyond the schema. This is insufficient for a tool with 8 parameters.
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 'Update an existing project,' naming the verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_project, delete_project, and update_task by explicitly targeting project updates.
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 verb and resource but not explicitly articulated. The description does not mention when to prefer this over update_task or batch updates, nor does it describe exclusions or 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the return behavior (summary by default, verbose=true for full data), which is useful, but it omits other behavioral details such as whether the project must exist, side effects, or idempotency.
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 sentence that immediately states the purpose and key behavior. It is concise, front-loaded, and contains no filler or redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of output schema and annotations, the description is too sparse for a tool with 5 parameters. It does not explain essential parameters like 'dimension' or 'description', and the return format beyond summary/full data is unspecified.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only explains the 'verbose' parameter, leaving 'name', 'projectId', 'dimension', and 'description' unexplained. This is insufficient for the 5-parameter 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 clearly states the action ('Create') and the specific resource ('dependency planning view inside a project'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_tag or create_task. The scope is explicit 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 Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is used when creating a dependency planning view, but it does not explicitly address when to use it versus alternatives or when not to use it. The phrase 'inside a project' provides some context but no exclusions or alternative guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: completed tasks are excluded by default, and summary vs. verbose output is toggled via verbose. However, it omits other behaviors such as pagination, sorting, filter combination logic, or permission requirements, leaving gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is three sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by concise behavior notes on defaults. Every sentence contributes value, with no wasted words.
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?
With 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is under-specified. It provides high-level defaults but no details on return shape, filter interactions, pagination, or edge cases, making it incomplete for a tool of this complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 9 parameters with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It only explains includeCompleted and verbose, leaving tags, status, assignee, dueAfter, dueBefore, priority, and projectId undefined. This is insufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly.
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 'List tasks' and clearly identifies the resource (tasks) with optional filters. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_task (single task retrieval) by focusing on listing multiple tasks.
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 gives clear context on default behavior (excludes completed tasks) and how to opt in (includeCompleted=true), but does not explicitly compare with alternatives like get_task or get_tasks_by_tag. There is no when-not-to-use guidance, leaving tool selection partially 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the default summary return and the verbose option, which is helpful. However, it does not mention whether updates are partial or full, required permissions, or error behavior, leaving significant gaps for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences front-load the purpose, then add the return behavior. No wasted words or repetition of schema details.
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?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is too thin. It does not explain what metadata fields can be updated, how to identify the view, or what 'summary' contains. A richer description is needed for effective tool selection and invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain parameters. It only mentions 'verbose' and implies metadata fields implicitly, but does not clarify the purpose of required parameters (projectId, viewId) or optional ones (name, dimension, description). The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of detail.
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 ('Update') and the resource ('dependency planning view metadata'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_dependency_view_node or update_dependency_view_edge. The verb and resource are specific and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies use for updating view-level metadata but does not explicitly differentiate from updating nodes/edges or provide when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance. No alternative tools are mentioned, so the context is inferred 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool 'return[s]' analysis results, implying a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state that it makes no modifications, nor does it mention any permissions, rate limits, or side effects. The output categories are helpful but safety-related behavior remains implicit.
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 sentence, front-loaded with the main verb and resource, and directly lists the output types. There is no filler or redundant information; every word adds value.
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 has moderate complexity and no output schema, but the description lists the main output categories. However, it does not describe the return structure, potential errors, or any prerequisites (e.g., whether the view must exist or have edges). It is adequate for basic selection but misses some important context an agent might need.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero description coverage, and the tool description does not explain what projectId or viewId refer to or how they affect the analysis. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, and the phrase 'dependency planning view' hints that viewId identifies that view, but the description adds no explicit parameter semantics to compensate for the schema gap.
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 'Analyze' and a clear resource 'dependency planning view', and lists concrete output categories (topological layers, ready tasks, blocked tasks, roots, leaves, isolated tasks). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_dependency_view, which likely just fetches the view without analysis.
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 use when you need analysis results of a dependency view, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives such as get_dependency_view or list_dependency_views. No exclusions or alternative tool references are given, leaving the choice to inference.
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 reveals that tags must be existing IDs from the same project, and that returns are summaries by default with verbose option for full data. However, it does not cover side effects like atomicity, partial failures, or permission requirements. It adds meaningful context but is not comprehensive.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence provides value: the first states the primary function, the second covers critical constraints and return behavior. No wasted words.
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?
For a batch tool with 7 parameters and no output schema, the description is usable but incomplete. It covers the main action, tag validation, and return format, but fails to explain tagOperation, status/priority options, or what 'summaries' contain. Given moderate complexity and zero annotations, this is a minimum viable description with clear gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only explains tags and verbose; the other five parameters (status, priority, taskIds, projectId, tagOperation) are left entirely to schema naming and enums. The critical tagOperation semantics (add/remove/replace) are undocumented. Compensation is insufficient.
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: 'Update multiple tasks at once.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like update_task by emphasizing batch operation, and the mention of tags and verbose return adds specificity. This is a specific verb+resource with clear scope.
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 batch updates ('multiple tasks at once') but does not explicitly mention alternatives or provide exclusions. It gives a constraint about tags (existing IDs from same project) but no guidance on when to use this tool versus update_task or other siblings. Usage context is clear but not fully explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the default return behavior ('Returns summary plus changed ids') and the effect of verbose=true, which is useful. However, it does not mention error handling (e.g., duplicate edges), required permissions, or whether edge direction is from-to or to-from, leaving room for ambiguity. Some behavior is disclosed but not comprehensive.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is exceptionally concise—two sentences that immediately state the core purpose and then provide a key behavioral detail. It has no filler and is front-loaded with the primary function. Every word earns its place.
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?
Given the tool has 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is moderately complete. It mentions a prerequisite (tasks already present), describes the return summary and verbose flag, but lacks clarity on edge direction semantics, error conditions, or the role of project/view IDs. It is sufficient for basic selection but not fully complete for correct invocation without further inference.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'verbose' parameter explicitly. The other parameters (projectId, viewId, fromTaskId, toTaskId) are named descriptively and the tool description gives context, but the direction of the edge (from vs to) is not clarified, which is a critical semantic gap. The description adds some value but does not fully explain all parameters.
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 ('Create a dependency edge') and specific resources ('between two tasks already present in a dependency planning view'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools such as update_dependency_view_edge and remove_dependency_view_edge by focusing on creation, and it adds a prerequisite ('already present') that clarifies scope.
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 stating the tools creates an edge between existing tasks, but it does not explicitly provide when-to-use versus alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios. There is no mention of using update/remove functions for existing edges or needing to add tasks first. The context is somewhat clear but lacks explicit 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 provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses return behavior ('Returns summary plus changed ids by default') and the verbose option for full data, which is valuable. However, it does not mention potential side effects, prerequisites, or error conditions, though the precondition that the task must already exist is implied by 'existing task.'
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, front-loaded with the primary action, and every word contributes. It efficiently conveys the core behavior and a key option without redundancy.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (8 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is too sparse. It covers purpose and return summary but leaves the purpose of multiple parameters and potential behaviors unexplained, making it incomplete for an agent to invoke correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 8 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the description only clarifies 'verbose.' Other parameters like x, y, note, and collapsed are not explained, nor are the required ids elaborated. The description adds minimal value over the schema for understanding parameter meanings.
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: 'Add an existing task into a dependency planning view.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and the action is distinct from sibling tools like remove_task_from_dependency_view and add_dependency_view_edge, which serve 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?
The description implies usage by stating the action, but it does not explicitly provide when-to-use guidance or contrast with alternatives like update_dependency_view_node. The context is clear enough for a straightforward add operation, but there is no explicit exclusion or alternative recommendation.
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 useful behavioral traits: 'Returns summary by default; set verbose=true for full data' and the tag validation rule. However, it does not mention permissions, failure modes, or reversibility, leaving some gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, consisting of two sentences that front-load the primary purpose, then add necessary constraints and return-behavior details. Every sentence serves a purpose with no redundancy.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (8 parameters), lack of annotations, and absence of an output schema, the description is too sparse. It omits details about required parameters, error handling, and the composition of the summary, making it incomplete for an agent to invoke correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning to 'tags' (must be existing IDs) and 'verbose' (controls response detail), but it does not explain dueDate, assignee, priority, or the required fields beyond their names. The coverage is insufficient for 8 parameters.
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 primary action: 'Create a new task in a project.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_task, get_task, and delete_task. The purpose is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage through the tool name and provides a key prerequisite ('tags must be existing tag IDs from the same project'), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or include exclusions. Guidance is present but mostly 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 carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get', implying a read operation, but does not mention error handling (e.g., no task found), auth requirements, read-only guarantees, or any side effects. This is insufficient transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that is front-loaded with the purpose (Get a specific task) and then provides the identifiers. Every word is necessary, with no fluff.
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?
For a simple get-by-ID tool, the description covers the key purpose and parameters. However, with no output schema or annotations, it omits details about return value shape, error behaviors, and prerequisites, making it minimally viable but not fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema only specifies types and minLength without descriptions, but the description explains that projectId and taskId are used to identify the specific task, adding meaningful semantics. It maps both parameters clearly, compensating for the 0% schema description 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 tool's function: retrieving a specific task using project ID and task ID. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_tasks (list all tasks) and get_tasks_by_tag (retrieve by tag), and the verb 'Get' precisely indicates the action.
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: call this when you need a single task by its project and task ID. However, it does not explicitly provide when-not-to-use or compare with alternatives, leaving the decision to the agent's inference from the sibling list.
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 for behavioral disclosure. It adds useful return-value behavior ('Returns summary plus changed ids by default; set verbose=true for full data') but does not mention permissions, reversibility, or side effects beyond direction change. This is more than a bare 'Update' statement but still leaves gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no fluff. It efficiently conveys the core action and the key output/verbosity toggle. Every clause earns its place.
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 has 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, so the description needs to be substantial. It explains the return format but leaves the main mechanics of direction update (from/to parameters) unexplained, omits any usage guidance or alternatives, and does not mention prerequisites or side effects. This is insufficient for an agent to confidently use the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It explicitly explains only the 'verbose' parameter (set true for full data) but does not clarify the semantics of 'fromTaskId' and 'toTaskId'—the likely core parameters for changing direction. The required IDs (projectId, viewId, edgeId) are self-evident, but the direction-changing mechanism is undocumented.
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 specific function: 'Update the direction of a dependency edge inside a dependency planning view.' It names the verb (update), the resource (dependency edge), and the precise aspect (direction), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_dependency_view_edge and remove_dependency_view_edge.
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 the use case: use this tool when you need to change an existing edge's direction in a dependency view. It doesn't explicitly contrast with add/remove edge tools, but the phrase 'update the direction' gives clear context. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, so a minor gap exists.
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 full burden. It discloses the default return behavior (summary plus changed ids) and the verbose flag for full data, adding value beyond the schema. However, it omits side effects, permissions, or error conditions, leaving some gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two concise sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource. The second sentence adds useful return behavior without redundancy, earning its place.
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 gives a solid high-level summary but is incomplete given the complexity: no output schema, no annotations, and 8 parameters. It omits parameter constraints, differences from batch tools, and any edge-case behavior. Adequate but not fully comprehensive.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description only hints at 'layout' (x, y) and 'note', leaving parameters like collapsed and verbose insufficiently explained. It does not clarify which update fields are required or optional, or how they interact. Minimal added value beyond property names.
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 updates a task node's layout or note within a dependency planning view, using a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from siblings like update_task (generic task update) and update_dependency_view (view-level update).
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 single-node updates in dependency views but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as batch_update_dependency_view_nodes for multiple nodes. No clear when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use 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 full burden. It usefully discloses the default return behavior ('summary plus changed ids') and the verbose option. However, it does not mention whether updates merge or replace existing fields, how partial failures are handled, or any permission requirements, leaving key behavioral traits undisclosed.
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, front-loaded with the primary purpose and a concise note on return behavior. Every word earns its place, and there is no fluff or repetition.
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 core action and default return value, but given the absence of annotations and an output schema, it omits important details for a batch update tool: whether updates are merge-based or replace-based, error handling for partial updates, and prerequisites like view existence. These gaps make it only moderately complete for the tool's complexity.
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?
Since the schema has zero description coverage, the description compensates by explaining that 'nodes' contain layouts or notes, giving meaning to x/y/collapsed/note. It also clarifies the 'verbose' parameter. It does not explain projectId/viewId, but these are contextually obvious from the tool name and schema, and the nodes and verbose explanations are the most valuable additions.
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 a specific action ('Update') and a specific resource ('multiple task node layouts or notes inside a dependency planning view'). The word 'multiple' distinguishes it from the sibling tool update_dependency_view_node, which handles a single node.
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 a batch use case through 'multiple' but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus update_dependency_view_node or provide exclusion criteria. There is no direct comparison to sibling tools, making the guidance implicit rather than explicit.
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 and does add value by disclosing that summary mode is the default and includes project tags, and that verbose=true fetches full data. It does not mention pagination or return format, but for a read-only list tool, this is sufficient behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two short sentences that are front-loaded with the main purpose, with zero wasted words. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.
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 list tool with one boolean parameter and no output schema, the description covers the key behavior (summary vs full mode, tags in summary). The only minor gap is the lack of mention of pagination or sorting, but this is not critical given the tool's low complexity.
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 description explains the verbose parameter ('Set verbose=true for full project data') and implies the default summary mode, providing meaning beyond the bare boolean schema. This compensates well for the 0% schema description coverage.
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 'List all projects' with a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_project (single project) and list_tasks (different resource). It also adds useful context about summary mode and tags, but does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools.
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 listing projects and provides guidance on verbose mode, which is helpful. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_project for a single project or list_tags for viewing tags, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites.
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 reveals that the tool returns a summary by default and supports a verbose mode for full data, and that tags must reference existing IDs within the same project. It does not cover partial update semantics or null-field behavior, but the disclosed traits are meaningful and go beyond the schema.
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 long, front-loaded with the core purpose ('Update an existing task') and follows with the most critical constraint and output behavior. Every clause earns its place; no superfluous information.
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?
For a tool with 10 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose, a critical parameter constraint, and output behavior. However, it leaves gaps regarding partial update behavior, the contents of the summary, null-field semantics, and error conditions, making it incomplete for a mutation tool of this 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 description adds semantic value for two parameters: 'tags' (must be existing IDs from the same project) and 'verbose' (controls output detail). However, it does not explain the update semantics for other fields such as dueDate or assignee, which allow null, nor does it clarify whether unspecified fields are left unchanged. Given 0% schema description coverage, the description only partially compensates for the lack of parameter documentation.
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: 'Update an existing task.' It is unambiguous and naturally distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_task, delete_task, and batch_update_tasks.
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 provides a key usage constraint—'tags must be existing tag IDs from the same project'—and explains the verbose option, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over batch_update_tasks or other alternatives. The guidance is implied by the tool's name and the existence of sibling tools, not explicitly articulated.
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 transparency burden. It discloses the side effect that connected edges are removed too, and explains the default return behavior ('summary plus changed ids') and how to get full data via verbose=true. This goes beyond a bare mutation description, though it omits permission requirements and irreversibility details.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, and every sentence adds value. It efficiently covers purpose, side effect, and return behavior with no filler.
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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core operational aspects: what is removed, the side effect on edges, and the default vs verbose return modes. It lacks error conditions or permission notes, but the provided information gives a complete mental model for typical 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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does add meaning to the verbose parameter by explaining its effect on the return payload. However, it does not explicitly describe projectId, viewId, or taskId, relying on the parameter names and context. This provides some value but leaves the required parameters underspecified.
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: 'Remove a task node from a dependency planning view' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like remove_dependency_view_edge by mentioning that connected edges are also removed, and from delete_task by specifying this is about the view.
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 context—when you need to remove a task from a dependency view—but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like remove_dependency_view_edge or delete_task. No exclusions or alternative references are provided.
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 that the default return is 'Agent-friendly task snapshots' and that verbose=true returns 'raw node and edge data,' which is useful behavioral information beyond the schema. However, it does not mention error behavior, side effects, or permissions, though the 'Get' verb implies a 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence pair. It front-loads the core action and then adds the key behavioral detail (default vs verbose output) in a second sentence. There is no redundant or extraneous text, making it highly efficient.
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 (3 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the essential information: what it does, how to call it, and what to expect in the response. It explains the return format distinction, which is especially important without an output schema. It could be improved by briefly defining 'dependency planning view' or noting what list_dependency_views is for, but it is sufficiently complete for the intended use.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so by explaining that projectId and viewId are used to locate the view, and it specifically describes the effect of the verbose parameter, which is not self-evident from the schema. This adds meaning beyond the bare property names and types, although it does not detail constraints or default values beyond what the schema shows.
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 begins with 'Get a dependency planning view by project ID and view ID,' stating a specific verb and resource, and clarifies the two identifying parameters. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_dependency_views or update_dependency_view by focusing on fetching a single view with a specific format.
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 context by explaining the default output and the verbose flag, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this over list_dependency_views or other alternatives. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate use case.
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 full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that tasks are returned as summaries by default and that verbose=true yields full task data, which is valuable beyond the schema. It does not mention error behavior or prerequisites, but for a simple get operation this is relatively transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose and follows with the key behavioral note about task summaries. Every word adds value, and there is no redundancy.
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 absence of an output schema, the description adequately outlines what is returned (tasks, tags, milestones) and the summary vs. full data behavior. It is complete for a straightforward get-by-id tool, though it does not specify the format of tags and milestones beyond naming them.
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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains verbose=true for full task data and implies projectId is the identifier used. Both parameters are semantically addressed, though projectId relies on context rather than explicit detail.
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 verb (get), resource (project), and scope (by ID with all its data including tasks, tags, milestones). It distinguishes this from sibling tools like list_projects and get_task by specifying the ID-based direct retrieval and the associated entities.
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 fetching a single project by ID and mentions the verbose option for full task data, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives like list_projects or get_task. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.
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 of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that default output is summaries and that verbose provides 'raw node and edge data,' which is meaningful. It omits pagination or permission details, but for a listing tool this is acceptable.
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?
A single sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, then compactly captures three output modes. No filler words or redundant information.
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 no output schema and no annotations, the description adequately conveys what output variants exist but not their exact structure (e.g., summary fields, node/edge formats). It is sufficient for tool selection, though slightly more detail on return shape would make it fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description explains the semantic effect of includeTasks and verbose booleans beyond their bare definitions. The required projectId is self-evident from the 'in a project' scope, fully compensating for the lack of schema descriptions.
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 'List' with a clear resource 'dependency planning views' and scope 'in a project.' It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_dependency_view by implying collection-level listing rather than single-view retrieval.
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?
It explicitly states the default behavior (summaries) and describes the two optional modes (includeTasks, verbose), giving clear context on how to tailor the output. It does not explicitly mention when to prefer get_dependency_view, but the collection-vs-single distinction is evident from sibling names.
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/shiquda/roadmap-skill'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server