SINT Protocol

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v0.1.4
Disambiguation5/5
Every tool has a clearly distinct purpose with no ambiguity. Tools like sint__approve and sint__deny handle opposite actions, sint__audit and sint__pending cover different review aspects, and sint__store_memory and sint__recall_memory manage separate memory operations. The descriptions make each tool's unique role immediately apparent.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent 'sint__verb_noun' pattern throughout, with clear and descriptive names like sint__add_server, sint__remove_server, and sint__list_delegations. The naming convention is uniform, using snake_case and prefixed verbs that accurately reflect each tool's function without deviation.
Tool Count4/5
With 21 tools, the count is slightly high but reasonable for the server's purpose of managing MCP servers, operator interfaces, and security capabilities. It covers a broad scope including server management, delegation, approval workflows, and memory operations, though it could be streamlined without losing essential functionality.
Completeness5/5
The tool set provides comprehensive coverage for the SINT Protocol domain, including full lifecycle management for servers (add, remove, list), delegation (issue, list, revoke), approval workflows (pending, approve, deny), memory operations (store, recall), and operator interface control. No obvious gaps exist; agents can perform all expected operations without dead ends.
Average 3.4/5 across 21 of 21 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- 72 of 98 community issues answered or closed in the last 6 months
- 52 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on April 18, 2026
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under Apache 2.0.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
This repository includes a glama.json configuration file.
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.
View related servers

How to sync the server with GitHub?

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

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

How is the quality score calculated?

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

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

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

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

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It implies a mutation ('Approve') but doesn't disclose permissions needed, side effects (e.g., what happens after approval), rate limits, or response format. This is inadequate for a tool that likely changes system state.
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 wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool, 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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a mutation tool. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., authorization, effects), response format, and usage context, failing to compensate for the missing structured data.
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 the schema fully documents both parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying 'requestId' identifies a pending action, which is already clear from the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as 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 ('Approve') and resource ('a pending escalated action by its request ID'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'sint__deny' (which presumably denies rather than approves) or 'sint__pending' (which might list pending actions), 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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a pending action), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'sint__deny' for rejection scenarios, 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.
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 states that the tool issues a token and returns a tokenId on success, which covers the basic outcome. However, it lacks details on critical behaviors: it doesn't mention authentication requirements, potential side effects (e.g., token persistence), error conditions, or rate limits. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
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, efficient sentence that front-loads the purpose and outcome. It avoids redundancy and wastes no words, making it easy to parse. It could be slightly improved by structuring into separate purpose and result clauses, but it's already highly concise and well-organized.
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 issuing a token (a mutation operation), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers the basic action and return value but omits essential context: it doesn't explain the token's lifecycle, admin requirements, error handling, or how the token integrates with sibling tools. For a tool with 4 parameters and significant implications, more detail is needed to guide the agent 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%, meaning the input schema fully documents all parameters (subject, resource, actions, expiresInHours). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or constraints. However, since the schema is comprehensive, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't need to compensate for gaps.
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 ('Issue a new capability token') and the resource ('capability token'), with the added detail of 'with restricted scope (admin)'. It distinguishes this from siblings like sint__revoke_token or sint__list_delegations by focusing on creation rather than management or querying. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings (e.g., sint__delegate_to_agent might also involve token-like operations), keeping it from 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. It mentions 'restricted scope (admin)', which implies an admin context, but doesn't specify prerequisites, exclusions, or direct comparisons to siblings like sint__delegate_to_agent or sint__approve. Without explicit when/when-not instructions, the agent must infer usage from the purpose alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions sending a notification with an optional button, but lacks critical behavioral details: whether this is a read-only or mutative operation, if it requires specific permissions, rate limits, or how the notification is delivered (e.g., pop-up, log). For a tool with potential user impact, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Send a proactive notification to the operator') and adds the optional feature concisely. Every word earns its place with zero waste, making it easy for an agent 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 tool's complexity (notifications with interactive buttons), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like delivery method, user response handling, or error conditions. For a tool that could affect user experience, more context is needed to ensure proper 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%, so the schema already documents both parameters (message and action) thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by implying the button is 'actionable' and attached to the notification, but doesn't provide additional syntax, format, or usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 verb 'send' and resource 'proactive notification to the operator', specifying it can include an 'actionable button'. It distinguishes from siblings like sint__speak (which might be for speech output) or sint__show_hud (which might be for visual displays), but doesn't explicitly contrast with them. The purpose is specific but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.
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 mentions the optional button feature but doesn't specify scenarios (e.g., for urgent alerts, user interactions, or system updates) or exclusions. With many sibling tools available, this omission leaves 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. While 'Remove' implies a destructive operation, it doesn't specify whether this action is reversible, requires specific permissions, affects system stability, or has side effects like stopping processes. For a tool that likely modifies system state, this lack of detail is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence with no wasted words, making it highly concise and front-loaded. It efficiently communicates the core action without unnecessary elaboration, earning full marks for brevity and clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, and the tool's likely destructive nature (implied by 'Remove'), the description is incomplete. It doesn't address key contextual aspects like what 'downstream MCP server' entails, confirmation requirements, error handling, or return values, leaving the agent with insufficient information for safe and effective use.
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 'name' clearly documented in the schema as 'Name of the server to remove'. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond this, such as format examples or naming conventions, so it meets the baseline for adequate but not enhanced parameter 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 ('Remove') and the resource ('a downstream MCP server by name'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like sint__revoke_delegation_tree or sint__revoke_token, which might also involve removal operations in different contexts.
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 sint__servers (which might list servers) or sint__revoke_token (which might remove tokens). There's no mention of prerequisites, consequences, or appropriate contexts for removal, leaving the agent with insufficient 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 provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool is for admins and involves revocation, but doesn't explain what revocation entails (e.g., immediate deactivation, irreversible action, system impact), nor does it cover error conditions, permissions required beyond 'admin', or response format.
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, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple revocation tool, though it could be slightly more structured by separating the admin constraint into its own clause.
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 happens after revocation, what the return value might be, error scenarios, or system implications. The '(admin)' hint is helpful but doesn't provide complete operational context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters (tokenId and reason). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, but doesn't need to since the schema is complete. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does all the work.
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 ('revoke') and the resource ('active capability token by its ID'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'revoke_delegation_tree' or 'issue_token', but the verb+resource combination is specific enough for basic understanding.
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 'revoke_delegation_tree' or 'deny', nor does it mention prerequisites or constraints beyond the '(admin)' hint. There's no explicit when/when-not usage context 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?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but lacks behavioral details. It mentions scheduling and priority but doesn't disclose execution timing, persistence, error handling, or system impact. For a tool that interacts with operator audio, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. Every word contributes to understanding without redundancy or fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and interaction with operator systems, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on return values, side effects, or operational context, leaving gaps for safe and effective use.
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 mentioning 'configurable priority level', which aligns with the priority parameter, but doesn't explain text formatting or priority implications 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 clearly states the action ('Schedule TTS voice output') and target ('to the operator'), with a specific feature ('configurable priority level'). It distinguishes from siblings like sint__notify or sint__status by focusing on scheduled audio output, though it doesn't explicitly compare to them.
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 sint__notify or sint__interface_status. The description implies it's for voice output but doesn't specify scenarios, 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it mentions 'persistence beyond this session' which hints at session-bound behavior, it doesn't address critical aspects like whether this operation overwrites existing entries, what happens on duplicate keys, error conditions, or performance characteristics. The description is insufficient for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
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 communicates the core functionality without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a straightforward storage operation and front-loads the essential action.
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 inadequate. It doesn't explain what happens on success/failure, what gets returned, how errors manifest, or the implications of the persistence setting. The agent lacks sufficient context to use this tool effectively in production scenarios.
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 schema already documents all 4 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by mentioning 'optional tags and persistence' but provides no additional semantic context beyond what's in the schema descriptions. This 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 ('Store an entry') and resource ('in the memory bank'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from its sibling 'sint__recall_memory' beyond the basic verb difference, missing an opportunity to clarify their complementary relationship.
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 sibling tools like 'sint__recall_memory' and 'sint__pending' that might relate to memory operations, there's no indication of appropriate contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions for this storage function.
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. While 'Query' implies a read-only operation, it doesn't specify authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior, or what constitutes 'recent' events. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its 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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary 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?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (querying an evidence ledger), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It identifies the resource and scope but doesn't explain return values, error conditions, or behavioral constraints, leaving room for improvement in completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage (the 'limit' parameter is fully documented in the schema), so the baseline score is 3. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema, but it doesn't need to compensate for gaps either.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Query') and resource ('SINT evidence ledger'), and specifies the scope ('for recent decisions and events'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this read operation from siblings like 'sint__list_delegations' or 'sint__pending', which might also retrieve information.
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 'sint__list_delegations', 'sint__pending', and 'sint__status' that might retrieve related information, there's no indication of what makes this tool unique or when it should be preferred over others.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('List') and return type ('JSON array of DelegationNode objects'), but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, side effects, or how the 'current operator token' is determined, which is critical for a tool that likely involves authentication and data retrieval.
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 resource, with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with no parameters, making it easy to scan and understand 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 complexity implied by terms like 'delegation tree' and 'operator token', and with no annotations or output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what a DelegationNode is, how the tree is structured, or any behavioral traits, leaving gaps for effective tool use in a broader context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't add param info, maintaining focus on the tool's purpose and output, which aligns 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 verb ('List') and resource ('active delegation tree rooted at the current operator token'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'sint__servers' or 'sint__pending', which might also involve listing operations, so it misses 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, context for 'current operator token', or compare to siblings like 'sint__servers' for server listings or 'sint__pending' for pending delegations, leaving usage unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the return format ('as JSON') but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or whether the search is case-sensitive/fuzzy. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
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 outcome without unnecessary words. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to understanding the tool's function, making it optimally concise.
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 (search operation with 2 parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and return format but lacks details on search behavior, result structure, or error cases, which could hinder effective use by an 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 schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for both parameters ('query' and 'limit'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as search syntax or matching criteria, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Search'), the target resource ('memory bank'), and the outcome ('Returns matching entries as JSON'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'store_memory' by focusing on retrieval rather than storage, making the purpose immediately understandable.
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. While it implies usage for searching memory entries, it doesn't mention when not to use it or refer to sibling tools like 'store_memory' for related operations, leaving the agent without contextual usage cues.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the mutation behavior ('Update') and side effect ('Emits an operator.hud.updated event'), which is valuable. However, it lacks details about permissions needed, whether updates are persistent, rate limits, or what happens if invalid data is provided.
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 with two sentences that each add value. The first sentence states the core functionality, and the second adds important behavioral context about event emission. No wasted words or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides basic but incomplete context. It covers what the tool does and mentions an event emission, but lacks details about success/failure responses, data format expectations beyond 'any JSON value', or how this integrates with the broader HUD system.
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 the schema fully documents both parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (panel selection and data payload). This 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 ('Update') and resource ('a HUD panel with new data'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying HUD panel updates, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar UI tools like 'sint__interface_mode' or 'sint__interface_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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions an event emission ('Emits an operator.hud.updated event') which hints at notification purposes, but doesn't specify use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions compared to 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the action without behavioral details. It doesn't disclose permissions needed, whether this affects system stability, if changes persist, error handling, or what happens on success/failure. 'Dynamically' hints at runtime modification but lacks specifics.
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?
Single sentence with zero waste—every word contributes essential information: action ('add'), resource ('downstream MCP server'), and key constraint ('dynamically...at runtime'). No redundant or verbose phrasing.
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 that performs a system modification (adding servers) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'downstream MCP server' means in this context, what the tool returns, or critical behavioral aspects like side effects or security implications.
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 fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying these parameters configure the server addition. 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.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('add') and resource ('new downstream MCP server'), with the qualifier 'dynamically...at runtime' distinguishing it from static configuration. It differentiates from sibling 'sint__remove_server' by specifying addition rather than removal.
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 context ('at runtime') but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'sint__servers' (likely for listing) or 'sint__remove_server'. No guidance on prerequisites, error conditions, or specific scenarios for dynamic server addition 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 carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool denies an action, implying a mutation operation, but does not disclose other behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether the denial is reversible, what happens after denial (e.g., notifications, status changes), or any rate limits. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior 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, direct sentence that efficiently conveys the core action without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the key verb ('Deny') and resource, making it easy to parse and understand immediately. Every part of the sentence earns its place by specifying the action and target.
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 a denial operation (a mutation with potential side effects), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on behavioral aspects like permissions, consequences, or response format, which are crucial for safe and effective use. The description alone does not provide enough context for an agent to fully understand the tool's implications.
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 clear descriptions for all parameters (requestId, reason, by). The description does not add any additional meaning or context beyond what the schema provides, such as format details or examples. Since the schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description does not compensate but also does not detract.
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 ('Deny') and the target resource ('a pending escalated action by its request ID'), making the purpose specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like 'sint__approve' (which likely approves instead of denies) and 'sint__pending' (which likely lists pending actions rather than acting on them).
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 there is a 'pending escalated action' to deny, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'sint__approve' for approval or other tools for different actions). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving the context somewhat implied rather than fully guided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool changes the interface mode, implying a mutation, but fails to describe critical behaviors like whether this requires specific permissions, if changes are reversible, what side effects occur (e.g., impact on other tools), or response format. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in 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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose and enumerates the modes without any wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick comprehension.
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 that this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral aspects like permissions, reversibility, side effects, or response format. While the parameter is well-covered by the schema, the overall context for safe and effective use is insufficient, especially compared to siblings that may have overlapping or related functionalities.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'mode' fully documented in the schema, including its enum values. The description adds minimal value by listing the enum values, but it doesn't provide additional semantics beyond what the schema already covers. With only one parameter and high schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate, but the description slightly enhances clarity by explicitly naming the modes, warranting a score of 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Change') and the resource ('operator interface display mode'), and it enumerates the specific modes (hud, compact, voice-only, silent), making the purpose highly specific and unambiguous. It effectively distinguishes this tool from its siblings, such as sint__interface_status or sint__show_hud, by focusing on mode changes rather than status checks or display actions.
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 sint__interface_status for checking the current mode or sint__show_hud for displaying the HUD. It lacks context on prerequisites, timing, or exclusions, leaving the agent without clear usage instructions beyond the basic action.
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 listing with attributes but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires permissions, how data is formatted, or if there are rate limits. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the key action ('List all downstream MCP servers') and specifies attributes without wasted words. Every part earns its place by clarifying scope and output 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?
Given the tool's complexity (simple listing with 0 params) and lack of annotations/output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states what it does but lacks behavioral context (e.g., safety, format). For a no-parameter tool, this is passable but not comprehensive.
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 description coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter details, and it appropriately doesn't mention any, earning a baseline score above 3 for not introducing confusion.
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 ('List all') and resource ('downstream MCP servers') with specific attributes ('connection status, tool counts, and health'). It distinguishes from siblings like sint__add_server (adds) and sint__remove_server (removes) by focusing on listing existing servers.
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, timing, or compare to siblings like sint__status (which might show overall status) or sint__interface_status (which could relate to interfaces).
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 this is a read operation ('Return'), implying non-destructive behavior, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error conditions, or response format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps unaddressed.
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, dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose and efficiently lists all returned attributes without unnecessary words. Every element (verb, resource, attributes) earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick comprehension.
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 adequately covers what the tool returns. However, it lacks output format details (e.g., structure of returned data) and behavioral context like error handling, which would be beneficial for full completeness 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 description coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately focuses on output semantics without redundant parameter info, earning a baseline score above minimum viable due to efficient handling of the parameter-less case.
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 specific action ('Return') and the exact resource ('current operator interface state'), listing specific attributes like mode, listening/speaking flags, HUD panels, memory context size, and session ID. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'sint__status' (likely general status) and 'sint__interface_mode' (likely just mode) by specifying the comprehensive interface-focused state retrieval.
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 needing interface state details, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'sint__status' or 'sint__interface_mode'. It doesn't mention prerequisites, exclusions, or specific contexts for invocation, leaving usage 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.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the cascade revocation behavior ('All descendant tokens are cascade-revoked'), which is a key behavioral trait. However, it lacks details on permissions, reversibility, or error handling, leaving gaps for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
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 includes all necessary details (verb, resource, scope, cascade effect). There is zero waste, and every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (mutation with cascade effects), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers the purpose and cascade behavior but lacks details on permissions, response format, or error conditions, which are important for safe invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters (rootTokenId and reason). The description adds context by explaining that rootTokenId identifies the 'subtree to revoke' and implies cascade effects, but does not provide additional syntax or format details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('revoke') and resource ('entire delegation subtree'), including the scope ('rooted at the given tokenId') and cascade effect ('All descendant tokens are cascade-revoked'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like sint__revoke_token by specifying subtree vs. single token revocation.
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 revoking a delegation subtree with cascade effects, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like sint__revoke_token or provide exclusions. The context is clear but lacks explicit guidance on alternatives 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 the full burden. It indicates a listing operation but lacks details on behavioral traits such as pagination, sorting, permissions required, rate limits, or what constitutes 'pending' (e.g., timeframes, states). This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.
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 key information ('List all pending approval requests') without any wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a no-parameter tool and earns its place by clearly stating the purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (simple listing with no parameters) and lack of annotations/output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but omits behavioral details like return format or operational constraints, leaving gaps that could hinder effective use by an AI agent.
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 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description adds no parameter information, which is appropriate, but it does imply the scope ('all pending approval requests'), providing slight semantic context beyond the schema. Baseline is 4 for zero 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 specific action ('List all') and resource ('pending approval requests awaiting human review'), distinguishing it from siblings like sint__approve, sint__deny, or sint__audit. It precisely communicates a read-only listing function focused on pending items requiring review.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context by specifying 'pending approval requests awaiting human review,' suggesting this tool is for monitoring or managing approval workflows. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like sint__audit or provide exclusion criteria, leaving some ambiguity.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behavioral traits: it creates a new token (implies mutation), specifies depth constraints (parent.depth + 1; max depth 3), and mentions the return value (tokenId). It could improve by addressing potential side effects or error conditions, but it covers core behavior well.
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 highly concise and front-loaded, with two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose, constraints, and outcome. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy or fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (delegation with depth limits), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the core operation and constraints but lacks details on error handling, security implications, or the format of the returned tokenId. It meets minimum viability but has clear gaps for a mutation tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description does not add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't clarify format for subagentId or toolScope patterns). 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.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Issue an attenuated capability token to a sub-agent') and resource ('granting it a reduced tool scope'), distinguishing it from siblings like sint__issue_token (which likely issues tokens without delegation) and sint__list_delegations (which lists rather than creates). It precisely defines the operation's purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for when to use this tool: for delegating capabilities to sub-agents with depth constraints (max depth 3). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives (e.g., vs. sint__issue_token for non-delegated tokens), missing full explicit guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the tool's read-only nature by using 'Show' and lists specific data points returned, but does not mention behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions. The description adds value but lacks comprehensive behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the purpose and details the scope without waste. Every word earns its place, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.
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 low complexity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is complete enough for a status-checking tool. It specifies what information is returned, though it could benefit from mentioning the output format or any system dependencies. The lack of output schema means the description should ideally cover return values, but it partially compensates by listing data points.
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 description coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description does not discuss parameters, which is appropriate. Baseline is 4 for zero parameters, as it avoids unnecessary information.
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 specific action ('Show') and resource ('SINT MCP status') with detailed scope ('connected servers, agent identity, queue size, and system health'). It distinguishes from siblings like sint__servers (likely lists servers only) and sint__interface_status (likely interface-specific status).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context for checking overall system status, but does not explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like sint__interface_status or sint__servers. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, though the context is clear enough for basic differentiation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It clearly indicates this is a read-only operation ('Show') that reveals sensitive authentication information. However, it doesn't disclose potential rate limits, whether this requires specific permissions, or how the information is formatted/structured in 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?
Extremely concise single sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Show current agent identity') followed by specific details of what's included. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter identity query tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate context about what information is returned. However, it doesn't specify the format/structure of the returned data or mention any authentication requirements for accessing this sensitive identity information.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters with 100% schema coverage, so the schema already fully documents the parameter situation. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, maintaining focus on what the tool returns rather than what it accepts. Baseline for zero parameters is 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Show') and the resource ('current agent identity'), listing the exact information returned (public key, active token, session info). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like sint__status or sint__interface_status by focusing specifically on identity details rather than general system status.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context - when you need to verify or display the current agent's authentication and session state. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools, though the specificity of 'identity' information provides some implicit differentiation.
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:

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

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

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

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/sint-ai/sint-protocol'

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