Ryot MCP Starter

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v0.3.0
Disambiguation4/5
Tools are mostly distinct due to specific naming and detailed descriptions, but there is overlap between generic tools like ryot_mark_media_progress and type-specific ones (e.g., ryot_mark_movie_watched), and many similar add-to-collection tools could confuse agents.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent 'ryot_verb_noun' pattern with clear prefixes and underscores, making names predictable and easy to navigate.
Tool Count2/5
45 tools is excessive for a 'starter' server, with many redundant tools for different media types that could be consolidated (e.g., separate mark progress tools per type vs generic). This overloads the tool surface.
Completeness3/5
Core operations for media tracking and fitness logging are present, but missing update/delete operations (e.g., no tool to delete a workout or update a collection). Schema discovery tools help but don't cover all user-facing gaps.
Average 3/5 across 45 of 45 tools scored. Lowest: 2.1/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 4 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.
If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.
MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

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

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

How is the quality score calculated?

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

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

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

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

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It says 'find', which suggests a read operation, but doesn't explicitly state it's non-destructive or that it doesn't modify data. No mention of permissions 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.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, but overly generic and missing crucial details. It could be more concise by adding a brief explanation of output, but instead it wastes space on vague terms like 'fitness progress' without structural benefit.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of the domain (multiple sibling tools for workouts) and lack of output schema, the description fails to provide enough context for correct tool selection. It doesn't explain what 'find' means or what kind of results to expect.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The only parameter 'limit' is not explained in the description. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should clarify its purpose (e.g., how many results to return), but it omits this entirely.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states it 'finds' schema operations and fields related to workouts, which is a specific verb and resource, but it's vague about what exactly is returned. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on workout-related schema, but the lack of detail on output reduces clarity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like ryot_schema_search or ryot_find_candidate_operations. The description implies it's for discovering workout schema, but doesn't state exclusions or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, description carries full burden. Only states 'Add', implying mutation, but no details on side effects, permissions, rate limits, or error handling. Mentions default collection name but not behavior if collection missing.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, succinct but sacrificing necessary detail. Front-loading is reasonable but content is sparse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and no output schema, description fails to provide sufficient context for an agent to use the tool correctly. Missing details on how to obtain metadataId, duplicate handling, or behavior when collection doesn't exist.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%. Description only implies the role of metadataId and collectionName through the main text, but does not explain information or creatorUserId fields. No parameter descriptions in schema or description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states verb 'Add' and resource 'TV show metadata item to your show watchlist collection'. The mention of 'TV show' helps differentiate from movie tools, but it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like ryot_add_movie_to_watchlist or ryot_add_to_collection. Lacks context on prerequisites or conditions.
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?
Without annotations, the description carries full burden but only says 'Start a new in-progress entry.' It does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether it overwrites an existing entry), required permissions, or what happens if the movie is not in the system. The optional 'manualTimeSpent' parameter hints at setting initial time, but this is not explained.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise but lacks substance. It could include key details without becoming verbose. It is front-loaded with the verb 'Start', but the structure is minimal.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what a 'new in-progress entry' means, whether it replaces an existing one, or how the input parameters affect behavior. The sibling tools suggest a rich domain, but this description misses critical context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is low (33%) and the tool description adds no parameter explanations. The description does not mention 'metadataId', 'startedOn', or 'manualTimeSpent', leaving the agent to infer from the schema alone.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Start a new in-progress entry for a movie' clearly states the action and resource, distinguishing it from siblings like 'ryot_mark_movie_watched' (completion) and 'ryot_mark_media_progress' (progress update). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from 'ryot_mark_show_in_progress'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, when to start an in-progress entry vs. updating progress with 'ryot_mark_media_progress'. The description lacks context about prerequisites or when not to use.
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?
Lacking annotations, the description only mentions 'using IGDB by default' but does not disclose pagination, result format, authentication, or rate limits. Minimal behavioral context beyond the source parameter.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence, which is concise but lacks necessary detail. It is front-loaded but at the expense of completeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain search behavior, pagination, or the role of the source parameter, leaving the agent uncertain about expected results.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description does not explain any of the four parameters (query, page, source, allowGamesWithParent). The mention of IGDB is implied but not explicitly connected to the source enum. Agent cannot infer parameter meanings from description alone.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool searches video games in Ryot using IGDB by default. It identifies the resource (video games) and the action (search), but does not distinguish from siblings like ryot_search_media or ryot_game_discovery.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like ryot_search_media or ryot_game_discovery. No context on prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'start playing' implying a state change, but does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether it overwrites existing progress, requires an 'unstarted' state), permissions, or idempotency. This is insufficient for safe invocation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short (4 words), which is concise but sacrifices informative content. It is not wasteful but also not adequately informative.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, low schema coverage, and a 3-param tool, the description is far too minimal. It provides almost no context about behavior, return values, or usage, making it incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 33% (only startedOn has a description). The description adds nothing about parameters, leaving metadataId and manualTimeSpent unexplained. Since schema coverage is low, description should compensate but fails.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Start playing a game in Ryot.' clearly states the verb 'start' and the resource 'game in Ryot'. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like ryot_mark_game_completed or ryot_mark_game_dropped, which could lead to confusion about which tool to use.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., ryot_mark_game_completed, ryot_mark_game_on_hold). The description is too brief to indicate prerequisites or context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must fully disclose behavior. Only states 'add' and a default collection; no indication of side effects, idempotency, error conditions, or required prior steps (e.g., metadata existence check).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, efficient and front-loaded with purpose. However, omits critical parameter details, making it too minimal for the number of parameters.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema, 4 parameters, and no annotations, the description should provide context on return value, information usage, and metadataId origin. It fails to do so.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% with no parameter descriptions. The description only hints at collectionName via default. No semantics added for metadataId, information, or creatorUserId.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Add' and the resource 'video game metadata item' to 'game backlog collection', and the title echoes this. It distinguishes from sibling tools like ryot_add_movie_to_watchlist by specifying game, making purpose clear.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like ryot_add_to_collection or other game-related tools. Mentions default collection but no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description must explain behavior. It only says 'mark as on hold' without detailing side effects, idempotency, or what happens if the entry is already on hold. The tool's behavioral implications are unclear.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no extraneous words, but it is too brief and omits essential information. It sacrifices completeness for conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It fails to explain return values, error conditions, or the meaning of 'latest', leaving gaps for safe usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The parameter 'metadataId' is not explained in the description, despite 0% schema coverage. The agent may not know what value to provide, as the context of 'metadataId' is not clarified.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action: 'Mark the latest game progress entry as on hold.' It uses a specific verb and resource, differentiating it from sibling tools like 'ryot_mark_game_completed'. However, the term 'latest' is ambiguous and could be clarified.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'ryot_mark_game_started' or 'ryot_mark_game_dropped'. The usage context is implied but not explicitly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the action without disclosing side effects, permissions, or how it selects the 'latest in-progress' entry. This is insufficient for a write operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise, but it lacks important details. It is front-loaded but too minimal to be fully useful.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and the complexity of updating game progress, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'latest in-progress' means, how multiple in-progress entries are handled, or what the result looks like.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema. It does not explain the relationship between 'metadataId' and 'percent', nor how the tool uses these parameters. Schema description coverage is 50%, and the description fails to compensate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('set progress percentage') and the resource ('latest in-progress game entry'). It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools like status markers, though 'latest in-progress' is slightly ambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, context, or situations where a different tool (e.g., status markers) 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.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, description has full burden. It does not disclose whether updates are partial or full, validation behavior, or side effects. For a complex tool with nested schema, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Very concise (16 words) but lacks necessary detail. Front-loaded with action, but under-specification harms utility.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Complex schema with many nested fields, no output schema, many sibling tools. Description fails to provide sufficient context for agent to invoke correctly or choose between alternatives.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, yet description only mentions template parameter implicitly via 'requires exercise IDs'. Does not explain structure, field meanings, or construction of template object. Critical gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states it creates or updates a workout template/routine and mentions requirement for exercise IDs. Distinguishes from sibling tools like ryot_create_minimum_routine_template, though not explicitly.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Implies need for Ryot exercise IDs but gives no guidance on when to use vs alternatives (e.g., simpler template creation, direct logging). No when-not or prerequisites beyond the ID requirement.
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 provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions caching behavior ('Returns Ryot's cached template ID response'), adding some transparency beyond a simple 'list templates'. However, it does not disclose other behavioral traits like pagination limits or authentication requirements.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, with two sentences that serve a clear purpose. However, it could be restructured to include parameter summaries without being overly long.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient for proper tool invocation. It lacks essential details about how to use the parameters effectively, leaving the agent to guess semantic meaning.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% (no descriptions in the input schema), and the tool description does not explain any of the 5 parameters (page, take, order, query, sortBy). The agent has no information about their meaning beyond names and types/enums.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (list/search) and resource (workout templates/routines), and mentions the return type (cached template ID response). It is distinct from siblings like get_workout_template_details, but does not explicitly contrast.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No explicit context or exclusions provided.
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 provided. The description does not explicitly state the tool is read-only, nor does it disclose error handling, rate limits, or authentication requirements. The word 'Get' implies no side effects, but fails to confirm.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. While not structured as bullet points, it is appropriately concise for a simple tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and a single parameter, the description should at least hint at what metadata details are returned (e.g., fields like title, genre, rating). It fails to provide that context, leaving the agent guessing about the output.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description only restates the parameter name 'metadataId' without explaining its format, source, or constraints. The agent gets no additional semantic value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves metadata details for various media types (movie/show/book/game/etc) by a metadataId, distinguishing it from sibling tools that focus on specific actions like adding to lists or marking status.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., ryot_get_user_metadata_details, ryot_get_movie_status). The description lacks context about prerequisites or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full behavioral disclosure. It describes the action as 'log', implying a write operation, but does not mention side effects, required permissions, or error conditions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the core action with an illustrative example. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 6 parameters, 3 required, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It omits how to obtain metadataId and the purpose of optional fields like startedOn, timestamp, and manualTimeSpent. The agent would lack critical usage details.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 33% (2 of 6 parameters). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond the example 'S01E05' implying season and episode numbers. Critical parameters like metadataId are unexplained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states verb and resource ('log one TV show episode as watched/completed') with an example 'S01E05'. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like ryot_mark_show_episode_started or ryot_mark_show_in_progress.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ryot_mark_show_episode_started. Lacks context for prerequisites or exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, requires authentication, or has any side effects. The phrase 'schema operations' hints at non-destructive activity but is not explicit.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no unnecessary words. However, it uses jargon like 'schema operations and fields' which may require clarification. Overall efficient but could be slightly clearer.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with one parameter and no output schema or annotations, the description is very minimal. It does not explain what the tool returns or how to use the limit parameter, leaving users guessing about functionality. Given sibling tools, it lacks sufficient detail to differentiate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Only one parameter (limit) is present in the schema with 0% description coverage. The description does not mention or explain the parameter's purpose or how it affects results, providing no additional meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description specifies the verb 'Find' and the resource 'Ryot schema operations and fields' with a list of media categories. It is specific but does not fully distinguish from similar tools like ryot_schema_search or ryot_search_media, which may also involve discovering schema or media.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides context (media types it covers) but no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like ryot_game_discovery or ryot_search_media. No when-not or exclusion criteria are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It states logs are 'completed' but does not disclose idempotency, overwrite behavior, or how defaults interact. The meaning of 'minimum routine' is vague.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no wasted words. Highly concise and easy to scan.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 8 parameters with defaults and no output schema, the description is too brief. It does not explain the 'minimum routine' concept, how parameters are combined, or what the resulting log looks like. Users would need to infer from defaults.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 50% with 8 parameters, but the description only mentions templateId. The other 7 parameters with defaults are not explained beyond the schema. The description fails to add meaningful context for parameters like sitToStandReps or walkingMinutes.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool logs a minimum routine for today, using verbs like 'start/log shortcut' and 'logs the minimum routine'. However, it does not distinguish from similar sibling tools like ryot_log_minimum_workout, which likely serves a similar purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. The description only mentions optional template linking but lacks context for choosing this tool over other logging or routine creation tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only discloses that creatorUserId is required and can be set via env var. It does not mention side effects, reversibility, permissions needed, or behavior if the collection does not exist. As a mutation tool, 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with two sentences: the first states the purpose and lists supported entity types, the second provides a crucial param hint. No unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 3 parameters, low schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the required structure of the entities array, error conditions, or what happens if the collection is missing. An agent would need additional context to use this tool reliably.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is low (33%). The description adds value for creatorUserId by explaining the env var fallback. However, for entities and collectionName, it adds no semantic detail beyond the schema. The nested structure of entities (entityId, entityLot, information) is not explained, and the requirement that entityId be an existing ID is absent. The description compensates partially but not fully.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action: 'Add metadata, games, exercises, workouts, templates, or measurements to a Ryot collection.' This distinguishes it from siblings like adding to specific lists (watchlist, backlog) and from creating a new collection (ryot_create_collection). However, it could explicitly mention that it adds to an existing collection, which is implied but not stated.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, when should one use add_to_collection vs add_movie_to_watchlist or add_game_to_backlog? No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage from context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must disclose behaviors. It only states 'Create or update' without detailing mutation consequences, required permissions, idempotency, or the effect on existing collections. Lacks transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, efficient but slightly ambiguous ('Create or update' conflates two operations). Could be more clearly structured for an agent.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 4 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description leaves significant gaps: how to update a collection (via updateId?), what collaborators do, and the return value. Incomplete for successful tool invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not elaborate on any of the 4 parameters (name, updateId, description, collaborators). Adds no meaning beyond parameter names, failing to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the verb 'Create or update' and resource 'Ryot collection' with specific examples (Watchlist, Game backlog, etc.), effectively differentiating it from sibling tools that add items to collections.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Implies use for creating/updating collections but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like ryot_add_to_collection or ryot_add_game_to_backlog. No distinction between creation and update scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It implies a read operation but does not specify authentication requirements, performance characteristics, or side effects. The description is too minimal to fully inform the agent of the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of output schema and annotations, and the presence of many sibling tools, the description is insufficient. It does not clarify the output structure or distinguish clearly from similar user-specific metadata tools like ryot_get_user_metadata_details. The agent may need to infer the exact data returned.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The only parameter, metadataId, is mentioned as the identifier for the game, adding meaning beyond the schema's type-only definition. However, the description lacks details on format or examples, and schema description coverage is 0%, so the description partially compensates.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it retrieves user-specific game data (playing status, history, collections, reviews) by metadataId. This distinguishes it from siblings like ryot_get_metadata_details (general metadata) and ryot_get_movie_status. However, the list of data types is broad and could be more specific about what is returned.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like ryot_get_user_metadata_details or ryot_game_discovery. No context about prerequisites or conditions for use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits, but it only mentions logging and example statistic names. It does not discuss idempotency, side effects, authentication requirements, or error handling.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with one purposeful sentence and an example list. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose, but could be more structured by separating purpose and parameter guidance.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of output schema and annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not describe return values, error scenarios, or the full range of acceptable statistic names and values, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaning for the 'statistics' parameter by providing example names (weight, waist, etc.), but it does not explain the 'name' and 'comment' top-level parameters, which have no schema descriptions. Schema coverage is low (25%), so the description partially compensates.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Log') and resource ('weight/body measurements') and provides example statistic names. However, it does not explicitly mention that multiple measurements can be logged in a single call, which is supported by the schema.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like ryot_log_bodyweight_set or ryot_log_workout. There is no mention of prerequisites or context for appropriate use.
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 provided; description does not disclose side effects (e.g., does it update progress, remove from backlog?), idempotency, or required permissions. Minimal information 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.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise but lacks structure or front-loading of critical info. Acceptable for a simple tool but not optimized.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no output schema and 4 parameters, the description omits return values, confirmation of completion, and implications of marking 'completed' (e.g., timestamp recording). Incomplete context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 50% (only 2 of 4 parameters have descriptions). The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; parameters like metadataId and manualTimeSpent remain semantically weak.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'mark' and resource 'game' with state 'completed', clearly differentiating it from sibling tools like ryot_mark_game_dropped or ryot_mark_game_started.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., ryot_mark_game_* family). No prerequisites or conditions mentioned, leaving the agent without context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention potential side effects, irreversibility, or state requirements for the game entry. More detail is needed for safe invocation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is efficient and front-loaded. It communicates the core action without fluff, though it could be slightly expanded with minimal overhead.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (single parameter, no output schema, and many sibling tools for game status management), the description is insufficient. It lacks differentiation details, behavioral traits, and parameter clarification needed for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The single parameter 'metadataId' is a string with no description. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should explain what this ID represents (e.g., the game's metadata ID from a search). Without that, the agent may not know what value to provide.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'mark' and the specific resource 'latest game progress entry' as 'dropped'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ryot_mark_game_completed and ryot_mark_game_on_hold.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as marking as completed or on hold. The description only states what it does without providing context or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Start an in-progress entry', but does not explain if this creates a new record, updates an existing one, or what the effects are. No mention of idempotency, side effects, or requirements.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence, but it is too brief and omits crucial details. While concise, it sacrifices completeness for brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the return value, error conditions, or how progress tracking works. With many sibling tools, more context is needed for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 20% (only startedOn has a description). The tool description implies that metadataId, seasonNumber, and episodeNumber identify the episode, but does not explain startedOn or manualTimeSpent. More parameter guidance is needed for a tool with 5 parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Start an in-progress entry for a specific TV episode' clearly states the action (Start) and the resource (in-progress entry for a TV episode). It distinguishes from siblings like ryot_mark_show_episode_watched and ryot_mark_show_in_progress by specifying it's for starting an episode progress.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, such as needing a valid metadataId or that this should be used before marking the episode as watched. Without this, an agent may misuse it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only mentions default source (TMDB) but omits behavior such as pagination limits, empty result handling, or error conditions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences with no redundant information. Front-loaded with purpose and default behavior.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Tool has 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. Description lacks details on result format, pagination, and error states, making it incomplete for an AI agent to use reliably.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the description adds no meaning beyond the schema. The description does not explain the 'page' parameter or clarify the 'source' enum beyond restating the default. Fails to compensate for low coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states verb 'search' and resource 'movies' within Ryot, and adds context about defaulting to TMDB. This effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like ryot_search_show or ryot_search_game.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like ryot_search_media. The description does not mention prerequisites or conditions for usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It states it's a search (read operation) but doesn't mention pagination behavior, result format, or any restrictions. The default source is noted but no details on side effects or prerequisites.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise with two sentences and front-loaded purpose. It is efficient but could include more useful information without becoming verbose. Still, it earns a high score for structure.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on return values, pagination, and source usage. The minimal description fails to fully guide an agent in using this tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description only partially explains the 'source' parameter by noting defaults and alternatives. It provides no information about 'query' or 'page' parameters, leaving the agent to infer from the schema. Since schema has 0% description coverage, this is a significant gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Search TV shows in Ryot' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'ryot_search_movie' and 'ryot_search_media' by targeting TV shows. The mention of default source adds specificity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'ryot_search_media'. The description implies for TV show searches but doesn't provide context for selecting source or handling edge cases. Minimal usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Log' and requires an ID, but does not explain side effects, whether it creates a record, or if it is destructive. The agent cannot infer safety or mutation details.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with two sentences, no filler, and front-loaded with the main purpose. Every word adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too minimal. It lacks information about return values, how the set is logged (e.g., attached to a workout), and any prerequisites beyond the exercise ID.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 50%, but the description only adds meaning for exerciseId. It does not explain other parameters like reps, setCount, startTime, comment, or exerciseName, leaving gaps for the agent.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool logs a bodyweight exercise workout, provides examples, and mentions the required exercise ID. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on bodyweight exercises, but does not explicitly differentiate from other logging tools like ryot_log_workout.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for simple bodyweight exercises and requires an exercise ID, but offers no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternatives among siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only mentions creation and env var defaults. No disclosure of side effects, error handling, or behavior when env vars are missing.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences with no redundancy. First sentence states purpose, second adds key detail about exercise IDs. Front-loaded and efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Lacks explanation of return value, success/failure indicators, or template usage. Seven parameters with no output schema demand more context than provided.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 43%; only exercise ID params have descriptions. The tool description adds context for those but ignores templateName, reps, and minutes. Does not compensate for low coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Create' and the specific resource 'Minimum Day routine/template', distinguishing it from generic workout templates. The reference to exercise IDs via env vars adds specificity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like ryot_create_workout_template. Does not specify prerequisites or conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool discovers operations and fields, implying a read-only action, but does not disclose authentication requirements, rate limits, or what exactly is returned. More behavioral context is needed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the purpose. No redundant or unnecessary information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool is a discovery tool with one parameter and no output schema or annotations, the description is too minimal. It does not explain the input, output, or behavior, 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.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description does not mention the single parameter 'limit' (integer, optional, default 100). With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain parameter semantics but fails to do so, leaving the agent uninformed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Find' and the resource 'Ryot schema operations and fields related to video games, gaming progress, reviews, and collections.' It distinguishes from sibling discovery tools like ryot_media_discovery and ryot_workout_discovery, and from search tools like ryot_search_game.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies use for discovering schema operations related to games, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like ryot_search_game or ryot_media_discovery. No exclusions or 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.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It does not mention any traits like authentication, rate limits, or the scope of 'full details'. The description is too minimal for a mutation-free read tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, clear sentence that is front-loaded with the essential information. No unnecessary words or redundancies.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what 'full details' includes or any usage context. It is incomplete for an accurate invocation, especially with many sibling tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description only repeats 'by workoutId' without adding any additional meaning about the parameter's format, source, or constraints. It fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (Get full details) and the resource (logged workout) with the required identifier (workoutId). It effectively distinguishes from siblings like ryot_get_workout_template_details and ryot_list_recent_workouts.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as ryot_get_workout_template_details for templates or ryot_list_recent_workouts for recent workouts. No conditions or prerequisites are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only indicates a write operation (log as completed) without detailing side effects, idempotency, authentication needs, or error behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the main action. It could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness, but it earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema, no annotations, and 4 parameters, the description lacks completeness. It does not cover return values, side effects, or typical usage patterns, leaving the agent underinformed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description mentions 'startedOn' and 'manualTimeSpent' as optional, adding some meaning beyond the schema. However, it fails to explain 'metadataId' (required) and 'timestamp', reducing effectiveness. Schema coverage is 50%, and the description partially compensates.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool logs a movie as completed/watched, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like ryot_mark_movie_in_progress which imply intermediate states.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like ryot_mark_movie_in_progress or ryot_mark_media_progress. No context on prerequisites or typical use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose safety and behavioral traits. It mentions getting status/history/collections but does not state if the operation is read-only, needs authentication, or what the response contains. This is minimal behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no wasted words. It is efficient but could benefit from additional structural elements like bullet points for clarity without being lengthy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return structure of status/history/collections or how to interpret the results, leaving gaps for the agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description should clarify the parameter. It mentions 'by metadataId' but does not explain what metadataId refers to or how to obtain it. The agent lacks guidance on the parameter's semantics beyond its name.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it gets 'status/history/collections for a movie by metadataId', with a specific verb and resource. The name 'ryot_get_movie_status' distinguishes it from siblings like ryot_get_show_status and ryot_get_game_status, making the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description indicates the required parameter (metadataId) but does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like ryot_get_show_status. There is no explicit 'when-not' or mention of context for usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions actions but does not disclose behavioral details such as side effects (e.g., setting state to COMPLETED also sets progress to 100%), interaction between actions and parameters, or whether updates are incremental. The schema's parameter descriptions provide minimal context, but the description adds no extra behavioral clarity.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's generic nature and actions. It front-loads key information ('Generic progress tool') and avoids fluff. Minor improvement would be to structure it for scanning.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 13 parameters including media-specific fields (e.g., showEpisodeNumber, mangaChapterNumber) and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain parameter dependencies, relevance to different media types, or what happens after invoking actions (e.g., response or state changes). A more comprehensive description is needed for this complex tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 38%, meaning most parameters lack descriptions. The tool description does not clarify any parameters beyond listing actions in the text. For a low-coverage tool, the description should compensate by explaining key parameters (e.g., state, percent, timestamps) but fails to do so.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it is a 'Generic progress tool' for 'any Ryot metadata item', and lists the available actions (start, complete, drop, hold, update percent). This verb+resource combination is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools that target specific media types (e.g., ryot_mark_game_completed).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description calls itself 'generic', implying it can be used as a unified alternative to specific progress tools, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this over siblings or provide exclusion criteria. Usage context is implied but not clarified.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions a default collection name but does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether duplicates are allowed), authorization needs, or whether the tool is destructive. This is 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action and then adds a default detail. Every sentence is useful.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 4 parameters (1 required), no output schema, and no annotations, the description should provide more context. It does not explain what the tool returns, prerequisites (e.g., need to search for movie first), or how 'information' and 'creatorUserId' affect behavior. The coverage is insufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly without external knowledge.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description only adds meaning for the 'collectionName' parameter (default value). The other three parameters (metadataId, information, creatorUserId) are not explained. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving the agent uncertain about the role of these parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Add a movie metadata item') and the target resource ('your movie watchlist collection'). It also specifies a default collection name, which differentiates it from sibling tools like ryot_add_show_to_watchlist or ryot_add_game_to_backlog.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implicitly suggests use for adding movies to a watchlist, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like ryot_add_to_collection. No exclusions or alternative conditions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. The description only states the purpose but not whether the tool is read-only, requires authentication, or has any side effects. This is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded. It could be slightly improved by adding a second sentence for guidelines, but it is not verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks information on effective keyword usage and what the output looks like, which would help the agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, meaning no parameter descriptions are provided in the schema. The description does not elaborate on the 'keywords' parameter (e.g., format or examples) or the 'limit' parameter beyond its default and range, which are already in the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool finds 'likely root GraphQL queries/mutations for the requested domain', which is specific and distinguishes it from the many sibling tools that perform specific actions like adding games or marking media.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use this tool (when you need to find the right GraphQL operation), but it provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or any alternatives. Given the large number of sibling tools, this is a gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden. It mentions that the tool returns a 'cached workout ID response', indicating caching behavior. However, it does not disclose other behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, or the exact format of the response.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences that convey the core purpose and a key behavioral detail (cached response). No unnecessary words or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is insufficient. It omits crucial information about pagination, sorting, and searching functionality. A complete description should explain how page/take work, the meaning of order and sortBy, and the role of query.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 5 parameters (page, take, order, query, sortBy) with 0% schema description coverage. The description adds no explanation for any parameter, leaving their meaning and usage entirely to the agent to infer. This is a critical gap given the schema lacks descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'list/search' and the resource 'user's logged workouts', making the tool's purpose immediately evident. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ryot_get_workout_details and ryot_log_workout by focusing on listing and searching past workouts.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is for listing or searching workouts, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to use ryot_workout_discovery or ryot_get_workout_details). No when-not or context-specific advice is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description adds value by stating 'Duration is stored as seconds' and mentioning the default exercise ID. However, it lacks details about return values, side effects, or error cases. The behavioral traits disclosed are minimal but consistent with a simple logging action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences: first states the core purpose, second adds key details about exercise ID and unit conversion. No extraneous information, every sentence is purposeful.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and four parameters, the description covers the basic purpose and a key behavioral note (unit conversion). However, it omits what the tool returns (e.g., workout ID or status) and any side effects, leaving some gaps for a complete picture.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 50% (two of four parameters have descriptions). The description adds context that minutes are converted to seconds and clarifies the exercise ID usage. It does not explain comment or startTime beyond schema, so it partially compensates for missing schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it logs a walking workout, specifying the verb 'Log' and resource 'walking workout'. It mentions the exercise ID and duration, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like ryot_log_workout or ryot_log_minimum_workout, though the specificity to walking implies distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like the general logging tool ryot_log_workout. It does not mention exclusion criteria or prerequisites, leaving the agent without context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses that the tool either updates an existing entry or creates a new one depending on episode presence, but does not explain details like what 'latest entry' means, permissions needed, idempotency, or side effects. With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only provides minimal behavior info.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that conveys the essential logic without any wasted words. It is front-loaded and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 4 parameters, low schema coverage, and no output schema, the description explains the core behavior but misses details on parameter usage (seasonNumber, startedOn). It is adequate for a simple tool but could be more complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is low (25%). The description adds context for metadataId and episodeNumber but does not explain seasonNumber or startedOn beyond the schema. The description partially compensates for the coverage gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool marks a show as in progress, either updating the latest entry or creating a new one if no episode is given. It is specific about the verb 'mark' and resource 'show'. However, it doesn't fully clarify the distinction from sibling tools like ryot_mark_show_episode_started.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for marking a show's progress, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings like ryot_mark_show_episode_started or ryot_mark_show_episode_watched. No guidance on prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as side effects, required permissions, rate limits, or return format. The phrase 'Get full details' is vague; without an output schema, the agent cannot know the structure of the response.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that conveys the purpose efficiently with no extraneous words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple retrieval tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimal. It provides enough for an agent to infer the basic action, but lacks completeness regarding the expected response format or any special considerations. Given the complexity and lack of annotations, it is barely adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The single parameter 'workoutTemplateId' is required, but the description adds no meaning beyond 'by workoutTemplateId'. With 0% schema description coverage, the agent relies entirely on the parameter name and the description's implication that it is an identifier. A score of 3 is baseline given the simplicity, but more detail would be helpful.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves full details for a workout template by its ID. It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('workout template details'), and distinguishes from siblings like 'list_workout_templates' which returns summaries, and 'create_workout_template' which is for creation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It is implicit that one would use this after obtaining a workoutTemplateId from 'list_workout_templates' or 'create_workout_template', but no direct mention of when-not-to-use or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the schema is 'live' but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication requirements, or result format. 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the purpose. Every word earns its place; no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has only 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose and gives keyword examples. However, it does not explain what the search returns (e.g., types, field details) or provide guidance on result interpretation, making it somewhat incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 50%; the description adds examples for the 'keywords' parameter, which is valuable. However, the 'limit' parameter is only documented in the schema, not in the description. The description partially compensates for the coverage gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it searches the Ryot GraphQL schema for types, fields, inputs, queries, and mutations. This is a specific verb+resource and distinguishes it from sibling tools that perform actions on specific entities.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage for schema exploration but lacks details on when not to use it or comparisons with sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the data returned (status, history, progress, etc.) but does not disclose behavioral traits like side effects, authentication requirements, or rate limits. This is insufficient for complete transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the purpose. 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.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, the description adequately lists what the tool returns (status, episode history, progress, next entry, collections). It covers the main aspects, though it omits error handling or permission requirements.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, and the description adds 'by metadataId' which clarifies the parameter's role. However, it does not elaborate on what metadataId is or how to obtain it, providing only minimal added meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb (Get) and clearly identifies the resource (Ryot status, episode history, show progress, next entry, collections for a show). It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools that handle adding, marking, or searching shows.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, but the name and context imply it is for retrieving show status. No when-not-to-use guidance or alternative tool names are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description bears the full burden. It discloses the core action (create/update completed workout) and the ID requirement, but lacks details on update mechanics, authentication needs, or behavioral traits like idempotency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: two sentences that front-load the purpose and a key constraint. Every word earns its place without superfluous information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (nested objects, many fields, update capability), the description is too brief. It omits guidance on using update fields, linking to search tools, or explaining the required time fields for completed workouts.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description adds value by clarifying that exerciseId in the nested object must be Ryot IDs, not names. However, it does not explain the complex nested structure or other critical parameters like updateWorkoutId.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool creates or updates a completed Ryot workout, specifying the need for Ryot exercise IDs. This distinguishes it from other workout-related tools like ryot_log_minimum_workout or ryot_start_today_routine.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies that exercise IDs must be obtained via ryot_search_exercises, but it does not explicitly compare to alternatives or state when to create vs. update. No exclusions provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral transparency. It lists the data returned (history, collections, etc.) but does not disclose side effects, authentication needs, error conditions, or pagination behavior. It is adequate for a simple read operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence of 20 words, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word contributes meaning without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having only one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential return data types. It is sufficient for a straightforward GET operation, though it omits details like whether the output includes general metadata (like ryot_get_metadata_details).
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description only indirectly explains the parameter 'metadataId' by mentioning 'metadata item'. It does not provide details on format, source, or validation requirements, leaving the agent to infer the meaning.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action 'Get' and the resource 'user-specific Ryot state for a metadata item', listing specific data types returned. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ryot_get_metadata_details which likely returns general metadata info.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is for retrieving user-specific state, but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it. No comparisons to similar sibling tools are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It only states that it runs a query or mutation, without detailing potential side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or error behavior. This is inadequate for a tool that can modify data.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, consisting of two succinct sentences without any extraneous information. It front-loads the core action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (two parameters, no output schema), the description is somewhat complete but lacks guidance on how to handle responses or errors. It could mention using schema search to discover operations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already describes both parameters (query and variables) with 100% coverage, so the description adds no extra meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it runs a GraphQL query or mutation against Ryot, which distinguishes it from the many sibling tools that perform specific operations. The instruction to use after schema discovery adds useful context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It advises using after schema discovery, implying a precondition. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use this tool versus the more specific sibling tools, though the generic nature makes the distinction clear.
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 provided, so description carries full burden. It only states what is logged (walking, sit-to-stand, push-up) but does not disclose behavioral traits like potential side effects, required environment variables, or that the tool creates a workout entry. Hidden requirements like env vars are not mentioned.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences that front-load the purpose. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Adequately describes the core function but lacks important context: it does not mention that environment variables must be set for the default exercise IDs, nor does it describe the return value or success behavior. Given no output schema and 8 parameters with 50% schema coverage, more detail would be beneficial.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 50%, so baseline is 3. Description adds value by explaining that exercise IDs can be passed as parameters or set via environment variables, which clarifies the purpose of those parameters. Also lists the three default exercises.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the tool logs a default minimum workout consisting of walking, chair sit-to-stand, and wall push-up. It distinguishes from sibling tools like ryot_log_workout (general logging) and ryot_log_walk (just walking).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Implied usage for quickly logging a minimal workout, but no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like ryot_log_workout or ryot_create_minimum_routine_template. No exclusion criteria or prerequisites mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full weight. It mentions caching behavior ('Returns Ryot's cached exercise ID response'), which is helpful, but does not disclose other behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or any side effects, which would be expected for a search tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description consists of two short sentences that convey the core purpose and a key detail (caching and use of IDs). Every word is purposeful, and it is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has moderate complexity: 5 parameters, nested objects, enums, and no output schema. The description does not explain the response format, pagination behavior, or how to effectively use filters. Given the lack of schema descriptions and output schema, more detail is needed for an agent to use the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning parameters lack descriptions in the schema. The tool description does not explain any of the 5 parameters (page, take, query, filter, sortBy) beyond what their names imply. For a tool with nested filter objects and enums, this is insufficient. The description should at least provide guidance on the filter options.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly uses the verb 'Search' and identifies the resource as 'Ryot exercises'. It distinguishes the tool from sibling search tools for other entities (games, movies, shows) by specifying exercises. The note about returning cached IDs for downstream use adds clarity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The tool's name and description make its purpose obvious for searching exercises. Among siblings with similar prefixes, it is implicitly clear when to use this tool. However, there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or direct comparisons to alternatives.
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?
The description discloses that it returns 'Ryot's cached search response', indicating the data may not be real-time. No annotations are provided, so this behavioural detail (caching) is valuable. However, it does not mention any other traits like rate limits, auth requirements, or side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences front-load the purpose and a key behavioural detail. Every sentence adds value with no repetition or waste. Structurally efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 4 parameters (3 required) and no output schema, the description lacks sufficient detail. It does not explain how to use the 'page' parameter for pagination, what the response looks like, or how to match enum values for 'lot' and 'source'. The agent is left without critical information for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning no parameter descriptions exist. The tool description does not explain any of the four parameters (query, lot, source, page) beyond their names. While enum values for 'lot' and 'source' are self-evident, the description adds no semantic guidance, leaving the agent to infer meaning from the schema alone.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it searches Ryot metadata for a wide range of media types (movies, shows, books, etc.), distinguishing it from sibling tools like ryot_search_movie or ryot_search_show. The verb 'Search' and the listed categories make the purpose explicit and specific.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies general search usage by listing many media categories, but it does not explicitly advise when to use this tool over the more specific sibling search tools (e.g., ryot_search_movie). No exclusion criteria or alternative suggestions are provided, leaving the agent to infer usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It indicates a read-only operation ('check'), but does not disclose specifics like response format or error handling. For a simple health check, it is minimally sufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that effectively communicates the core function. It is front-loaded and has no unnecessary words. Could be slightly more structured but remains efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (zero parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is complete enough. It explains the essential action without needing further context. No gaps are apparent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters with 100% schema coverage. According to the rules, 0 parameters gives a baseline of 4. The description adds no parameter info, which is acceptable since no parameters exist.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: to check if the MCP can reach Ryot's GraphQL endpoint. It uses a specific verb ('check') and resource ('reachability'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools which are all action-oriented (adding, searching, logging, etc.).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for connectivity verification but does not explicitly state when to use vs alternatives. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned. Given the simplicity, it is adequate but lacks guidance on expected outcomes.
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:

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

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

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

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/shivanshBTW/ryot-mcp'

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