BugBug MCP Server

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have distinct purposes targeting specific resources (IP addresses, profiles, suites, tests, runs) and actions (get, run, stop, wait). However, some overlap exists between 'get_suite_run' and 'wait_for_suite_run' (both return suite run data) and between 'get_test_run' and 'wait_for_test_run', which could cause confusion about when to use each.
Naming Consistency5/5
Tool names follow a highly consistent verb_noun pattern throughout, primarily using 'get_' for retrieval, 'run_' for execution, 'stop_' for termination, and 'wait_' for monitoring. The only minor deviation is 'show_run_from_last_24', but it still fits the verb_noun convention and is readable.
Tool Count3/5
With 20 tools, the count is borderline high for a test automation server, feeling slightly heavy. While the tools cover various aspects (profiles, suites, tests, runs, screenshots, status), some could potentially be consolidated (e.g., multiple 'get_' tools for similar resources).
Completeness5/5
The tool set provides comprehensive coverage for the BugBug test automation domain, including CRUD-like operations (get lists and details), execution (run, stop), monitoring (wait, status), and auxiliary functions (screenshots, IP addresses). There are no obvious gaps; agents can manage the full lifecycle of tests and suites.
Average 3.3/5 across 20 of 20 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
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?
Annotations only provide a title, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions the automatic name/UUID lookup, but lacks critical details: whether this is a read or write operation (likely a write, as 'run' implies execution), what happens during execution (e.g., starts a test run, may be destructive), permissions needed, or rate limits. This is inadequate for a tool that likely performs mutations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and adds a useful behavioral note. There is no wasted verbiage, and it's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the likely complexity of running tests (a mutation operation with no annotations and no output schema), the description is insufficient. It lacks details on execution behavior, return values, error handling, or dependencies on other tools (e.g., needing a valid profile). This leaves significant gaps for an agent to use it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value by clarifying that 'testNameOrId' accepts either a name or UUID, with automatic name lookup if not a UUID, but doesn't explain parameter interactions or provide examples beyond what the schema already states.
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 ('Run test') and the mechanism ('by name or ID'), specifying that it automatically finds tests by name if not a UUID. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_test' (which retrieves test details) or 'stop_test_run' (which terminates execution), though it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_test_run' or 'wait_for_test_run', nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid test name/ID). It only explains the name/ID lookup behavior, leaving usage context implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. While 'Stop' implies a mutation operation, it doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this requires specific permissions, what happens to the test run (cancellation vs. termination), whether it's reversible, or any rate limits. The description is minimal beyond the basic action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loads the essential information ('Stop a running BugBug test run').
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 annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., success status, error messages) or address potential side effects, leaving significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior and outcomes.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'runId' documented as 'Test run UUID to stop'. The description doesn't add any additional meaning beyond this, such as format examples or constraints, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Stop') and target resource ('a running BugBug test run'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'stop_suite_run' or other test management tools, which would be needed for a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'wait_for_test_run' or when not to use it (e.g., on completed runs). It mentions the target is 'running' but doesn't clarify prerequisites or error conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations only provide a title that repeats the description, offering no behavioral hints. The description adds minimal context by implying it returns a list, but lacks details on pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling. With no annotations to rely on, this is a baseline 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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, making it easy to scan and understand quickly, which is ideal 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 has no output schema and annotations only repeat the title, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain return values (e.g., format of profiles), pagination details, or error cases, leaving gaps in understanding how to interpret results or handle edge cases.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with parameters 'page' and 'pageSize' fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters, such as default values, constraints, or how they affect the list retrieval, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('list of BugBug run profiles'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_profile' (singular) or 'get_suites' (different resource type), missing explicit distinction that would warrant a score of 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'get_profile' (singular), 'get_suites', and 'get_tests', there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving usage ambiguous.
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?
Annotations provide a title that matches the description's purpose, but no behavioral hints (e.g., readOnlyHint, destructiveHint) are present. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond stating it retrieves details, without addressing aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, or response format, which is inadequate given the lack of annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what 'details' include (e.g., suite configuration, test cases), potential errors, or how to interpret results, leaving gaps for a tool that likely returns structured data about a suite.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'suiteId' documented as 'Suite UUID'. The description doesn't add any semantic details beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or where to find the UUID, so it meets the baseline but offers no extra value.
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 ('Get details') and resource ('BugBug test suite'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_suites' (plural) or 'get_suite_run' which retrieves run information rather than suite details, missing full sibling distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites like needing a suite ID, nor does it compare to siblings like 'get_suites' for listing all suites or 'get_suite_run' for run-specific details, leaving usage context unclear.
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?
Annotations provide a title but no behavioral hints (e.g., readOnlyHint, destructiveHint). The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the title, stating it retrieves 'current status' but not explaining what that status entails, response format, or any limitations like rate limits or authentication needs. It doesn't contradict annotations, but offers little additional value.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what the status output includes, potential error conditions, or how it differs from related tools, leaving gaps for a tool that likely returns structured status information.
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?
With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema fully documents the single parameter 'runId' as a 'Test run UUID'. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline for adequate but unenlightening coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('current status of a BugBug test run'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_test_run' or 'get_test_run_screenshots', which prevents a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'get_test_run' and 'wait_for_test_run' that might serve similar purposes, there's no indication of when this specific status-checking tool is appropriate or what distinguishes it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide a title that matches the description's purpose, but no behavioral hints (e.g., readOnlyHint, destructiveHint). The description adds minimal context by specifying 'details' and 'specific', but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like error handling, authentication needs, rate limits, or what details are included, relying on the agent to infer from the schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.
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 low complexity (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate but lacks completeness. It doesn't explain what 'details' include, potential errors, or how it differs from siblings, leaving gaps that could hinder effective tool selection.
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 has 100% description coverage, with 'profileId' documented as 'Profile UUID'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying a single identifier is needed, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without compensating with extra meaning.
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 ('Get details') and resource ('BugBug run profile'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_profiles' (which likely lists multiple profiles) or 'get_test_run' (which might return different types of details), missing full sibling distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid profileId), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'get_profiles' for listing profiles or 'get_test_run' for test-specific details, leaving usage context unclear.
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?
Annotations provide a title that matches the description but no behavioral hints (e.g., readOnlyHint, destructiveHint). The description adds minimal context by specifying 'detailed results,' implying richer data than status-only tools, but doesn't disclose aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, or response format. With no annotations, the description carries some burden but offers limited behavioral insight.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every part of the sentence contributes to understanding the tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has one parameter with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but lacks depth. It doesn't explain what 'detailed results' include (e.g., logs, metrics, or structured data), which could be crucial for an agent. With no annotations and simple parameters, the description meets basic needs but leaves gaps in understanding the tool's full behavior and output.
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 has 100% description coverage, with 'runId' clearly documented as a 'Suite run UUID.' The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. Given high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the parameter documentation adequately.
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 ('Get detailed results') and resource ('BugBug suite run'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_suite_run_status' or 'get_suite_run_screenshots' that also retrieve information about suite runs, so it doesn't fully distinguish itself from alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get_suite_run_status' (which might give status only) or 'get_suite_run_screenshots' (which might retrieve visual data). There's no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving usage unclear relative to siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations only provide a title that restates the description, offering no behavioral hints. The description doesn't add meaningful behavioral context beyond the basic action—it doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, what format screenshots are returned in, if there are rate limits, or any other behavioral traits. However, it doesn't contradict annotations either.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.
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 simple single-parameter schema, lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It explains what the tool does but lacks details about return values, error conditions, or behavioral context that would be helpful for an AI agent. It's complete enough for basic understanding but leaves gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'runId' clearly documented as 'Suite run UUID'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('screenshots from a BugBug suite run'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_test_run_screenshots', but the specificity of 'suite run' versus 'test run' provides some implicit 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. There are multiple screenshot-related tools (e.g., 'get_test_run_screenshots') and other suite run tools (e.g., 'get_suite_run', 'get_suite_run_status'), but the description doesn't indicate when this specific tool is appropriate or what makes it different.
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?
Annotations only provide a title that repeats the description, offering no behavioral hints. The description itself doesn't disclose any behavioral traits beyond the basic operation - no information about authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what format the status information returns. It's minimally adequate but lacks important operational context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is perfectly concise - a single sentence that communicates the essential purpose without any wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and contains no unnecessary information.
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 status-checking tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally complete. However, it doesn't explain what 'status' means in this context (running, completed, failed, etc.) or what information the tool returns, which would be helpful given the lack of output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already fully documents the single 'runId' parameter as a 'Suite run UUID'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline expectation but doesn't provide extra value.
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 ('Get current status') and target resource ('BugBug suite run'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from its sibling 'get_test_run_status' or explain what distinguishes a 'suite run' from a 'test run' in this context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_suite_run' (which might return different information) or 'get_test_run_status' (for test runs rather than suite runs). There's no mention of prerequisites, timing considerations, 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.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide a title but no behavioral hints (no readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, etc.). The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the basic operation - it doesn't mention pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what constitutes a 'test suite' in this context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that states the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a list operation and front-loads the essential information.
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 list operation with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description provides basic purpose but lacks context about return format, pagination behavior, or error conditions. With no annotations covering behavioral aspects, the description should do more to explain what the tool actually returns and how it behaves.
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?
With 100% schema description coverage, all parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema - it doesn't explain default values, parameter interactions, or provide examples of query syntax.
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 'Get' and resource 'list of BugBug test suites', making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_suite' (singular) or 'get_tests', leaving room for potential confusion about scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_suite' (for a single suite) or 'get_tests' (for individual tests). The description lacks context about appropriate use cases or prerequisites for listing suites.
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?
Annotations provide a title that matches the description, but no behavioral hints (e.g., readOnlyHint, destructiveHint). The description adds no behavioral context beyond the basic action, such as authentication needs, rate limits, or return format. With no annotations, the description carries the burden but offers minimal behavioral insight.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence with zero waste. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, clearly stating the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally complete. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on usage context, behavioral traits, or output, leaving gaps for an AI agent to infer.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'testId' documented as 'Test UUID'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as format examples or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.
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 'Get' and the resource 'details of a specific BugBug test', making the purpose evident. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_tests' (plural) by specifying a single test, but doesn't explicitly contrast with other single-test tools like 'get_test_run'.
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 'get_test_run' or 'get_tests'. The description implies usage for retrieving details of a specific test, but lacks explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide a title that matches the description but no behavioral hints (e.g., readOnlyHint, destructiveHint). The description doesn't add behavioral context beyond stating it 'gets' results—it doesn't mention permissions, rate limits, or what 'detailed results' entail (e.g., logs, metrics). With no annotations, the description carries the burden but offers minimal behavioral insight, scoring average.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly, which is ideal for conciseness.
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 one parameter with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It specifies the resource but lacks details on output format or behavior, which could be important for a 'detailed results' tool. With no annotations to fill gaps, it's complete enough for basic use but leaves room for improvement in context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with 'runId' clearly documented as a 'Test run UUID'. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond this, as it doesn't explain format, sourcing, or constraints. Given high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to heavily.
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 'Get' and the resource 'detailed results of a BugBug test run', making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'get_test_run_status' or 'get_test_run_screenshots', which appear to retrieve different aspects of test runs, so it doesn't reach the highest clarity level.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'get_test_run_status' (likely for status only) and 'get_test_run_screenshots' (likely for screenshots only), there's no indication that this tool retrieves comprehensive results, leaving the agent to infer usage from tool names alone.
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?
Annotations only provide a title that repeats the description, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only operation ('Get list') but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination behavior (implied by parameters but not explained), rate limits, authentication needs, or what constitutes a 'historical' run. It adds minimal context beyond the basic purpose.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose with zero waste. It's appropriately sized for a tool with good schema documentation, avoiding redundancy while clearly stating what the tool does.
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 moderate complexity (5 parameters, no output schema) and lack of annotations beyond title, the description is minimally adequate. It states the purpose but lacks context on usage, behavioral details, or output format, leaving gaps that could hinder an agent's ability to use it effectively without trial and error.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with all parameters well-documented in the schema itself (e.g., ordering options, pagination, datetime filters). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without compensating with extra insights.
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 ('Get') and resource ('list of historical BugBug test runs'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from similar sibling tools like 'get_test_run' (singular) or 'show_run_from_last_24', which suggests it retrieves multiple runs but leaves ambiguity about scope compared to alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'get_test_run' (singular), 'show_run_from_last_24', and 'get_test_run_status', there's clear potential for confusion, but the description offers no context, prerequisites, or exclusions to help an agent choose appropriately.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond what annotations provide. The annotation 'title' essentially repeats the description, offering no additional behavioral insight. The description doesn't specify what format screenshots are returned in, whether there are pagination considerations, or any rate limits - though with annotations covering basic metadata, this earns a baseline score.
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 - a single sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words or elaboration. It's front-loaded with the essential information and wastes no space on redundant details.
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 single-parameter retrieval tool with good schema coverage but no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It identifies what resource is being retrieved but doesn't describe the return format, potential limitations, or relationships to other tools. The absence of an output schema means the description should ideally provide more context about what 'screenshots' means in practice.
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?
With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already fully documents the single 'runId' parameter. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, so it earns the baseline score of 3 for adequate but not additive parameter documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('screenshots from a BugBug test run'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from its sibling 'get_suite_run_screenshots' which appears to serve a similar purpose for suite runs rather than test runs.
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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple screenshot-related tools in the sibling list (get_suite_run_screenshots) and other test run tools (get_test_run, get_test_run_status), there's no indication of when this specific screenshot retrieval tool is appropriate versus those other options.
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?
Annotations provide a title but no behavioral hints (e.g., readOnlyHint, destructiveHint). The description doesn't add behavioral context beyond the basic action—it doesn't mention pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'BugBug tests' entail. However, it doesn't contradict annotations, and the schema covers parameters well, so it meets a minimal baseline.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste—'Get list of BugBug tests' is front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple list-retrieval tool. Every word contributes to understanding the purpose without 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's moderate complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but minimal. It covers the basic action but lacks context on output format, error handling, or integration with sibling tools, leaving gaps that could hinder optimal agent usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear parameter descriptions (e.g., 'Sort order', 'Page number for pagination'). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage without compensating value.
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 'Get' and resource 'list of BugBug tests', making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_test' (singular) or 'get_test_runs', which could cause confusion about when to use this specific list-retrieval tool versus alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_test' (for a single test) or 'get_test_runs' (for test runs). It lacks context about use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.
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?
Annotations provide a title but no behavioral hints (readOnly/destructive). The description adds the key constraint 'from last 24 hours' which is valuable behavioral context not in the schema. However, it doesn't mention pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'shows' actually returns.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that states exactly what the tool does with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core functionality.
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 read operation with good schema coverage but no output schema, the description provides the essential time constraint but lacks information about return format, pagination behavior, or error conditions. It's minimally adequate but leaves gaps an agent would need to infer.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters well-documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'shows' and the resource 'tests/suites runs from last 24 hours', providing specific scope. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_test_runs' or 'get_suite_run' that might have different timeframes or filtering capabilities.
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. With multiple sibling tools for retrieving runs (e.g., get_test_runs, get_suite_run, get_test_run), the description doesn't indicate why one would choose this time-constrained view over other options.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond what annotations provide. Annotations give the title 'Stop a running BugBug suite run' which already indicates this is a destructive/mutative operation. The description doesn't elaborate on what 'stop' entails (e.g., whether it terminates immediately or gracefully, what happens to partial results, or any side effects). However, it doesn't contradict the annotations either.
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 perfectly concise - a single sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the essential information and wastes no space on redundant or decorative language.
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 destructive operation with no output schema, the description provides the minimum viable information. It identifies what the tool does but lacks important context about the stopping behavior, expected outcomes, error conditions, or what happens after stopping. Given that this is a mutation tool with potential side effects, more completeness would be beneficial.
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?
With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already fully documents the single 'runId' parameter. The description doesn't add any additional semantic context about the parameter beyond what's in the schema (e.g., where to find the runId, format requirements, or validation rules). The baseline score of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Stop') and target resource ('a running BugBug suite run'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from its sibling 'stop_test_run' - both involve stopping operations, so the description lacks sibling differentiation that would warrant a score of 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., the suite run must be actively running), no exclusion criteria, and no comparison with related tools like 'stop_test_run' or 'wait_for_suite_run' which might be alternatives in different scenarios.
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?
Annotations only provide a title, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds value by describing the waiting/polling behavior and that it returns full test run data, which isn't obvious from the title or schema. However, it lacks details on error handling, what 'finished' means (e.g., success/failure states), or rate limits, leaving gaps for a tool with polling logic.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core functionality ('waits until test run finished') and adds the outcome ('returns full test run data as result'). There's no wasted verbiage, and it's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's polling behavior and lack of output schema, the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic action and result but omits details like response format, error conditions, or how 'finished' is defined. With no annotations and no output schema, more context would help the agent use it effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters are well-documented in the schema itself. The description doesn't add any semantic details beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain how polling interacts with runId or defaults). This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but doesn't enhance understanding.
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 ('waits until test run finished') and the resource ('test run'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_test_run_status' by emphasizing the waiting behavior and full data return, though it could be more explicit about differentiation from 'wait_for_suite_run'.
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 is provided. The description implies usage for monitoring test run completion, but it doesn't specify prerequisites, when to choose this over 'get_test_run_status' for polling, or any exclusions. This leaves the agent without clear decision-making 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?
Annotations provide a title but no hints like readOnly or destructive. The description adds minimal behavioral context, stating it retrieves a list, but doesn't disclose details such as rate limits, authentication needs, or output format. With no annotations to contradict, it's adequate but sparse.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and wastes no space, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
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 (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally complete. It states what the tool does but lacks details on output format or behavioral traits, which could be helpful for an agent despite the low complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add param info, but this is acceptable given the lack of inputs, aligning with the baseline for zero parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get list') and resource ('BugBug infrastructure IP addresses'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_profile' or 'get_tests' beyond the resource type, missing explicit sibling distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks context about prerequisites, timing, or comparisons to sibling tools, offering only a basic statement of function without usage instructions.
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?
Annotations only provide a title ('Wait for suite run to finish'), which doesn't cover behavioral traits. The description adds valuable context: it discloses that this is a blocking operation that waits until completion, involves polling (implied by 'waits'), and returns full suite run data. However, it doesn't specify error handling, what happens on timeout, or whether it's idempotent, leaving some behavioral aspects unclear.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and result. Every word earns its place: 'waits until suite run finished' specifies the behavior, and 'returns full suite run data as result' clarifies the outcome. There is no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (blocking wait operation with polling and timeout) and the absence of an output schema, the description is somewhat incomplete. It mentions returning 'full suite run data' but doesn't describe the format or what 'full' entails. With no annotations covering behavioral aspects and no output schema, more details on the return value or error conditions would enhance completeness, though the core purpose is clear.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear documentation for all parameters (runId, pollIntervalSeconds, timeoutMinutes). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the polling mechanism or timeout behavior in more detail. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.
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 ('waits until suite run finished') and the resource ('suite run'), with the outcome ('returns full suite run data as result'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_suite_run_status' (which likely returns status only) by emphasizing waiting for completion and returning full data. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'wait_for_test_run', which is a similar tool for test runs rather than suite runs.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when you need to wait for a suite run to finish and retrieve its full data, but it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'get_suite_run_status' (for quick status checks) or 'get_suite_run' (for immediate data without waiting). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving usage context somewhat inferred rather than clearly defined.
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:

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

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

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

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/simplypixi/bugbug-mcp-server'

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