SourceSync.ai 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, but some overlap exists. For example, ingestFile, ingestText, ingestUrls, ingestWebsite, and ingestSitemap all handle ingestion from different sources, which could cause confusion. However, their descriptions clarify the specific input types, helping to differentiate them. The search tools (semanticSearch, hybridSearch) are clearly distinct, and CRUD operations for connections, namespaces, and documents are well-separated.
Naming Consistency5/5
Tool names follow a highly consistent verb_noun pattern throughout, such as createConnection, deleteNamespace, fetchDocuments, and updateDocuments. All tools use camelCase uniformly, with no mixing of naming conventions. This predictability makes it easy for agents to understand and use the toolset.
Tool Count3/5
With 25 tools, the count is borderline high for a document ingestion and search server. While the tools cover a broad range of operations (connections, namespaces, ingestion, search, updates), it may feel heavy and potentially overwhelming. A more focused set could improve usability, but the count is not extreme.
Completeness5/5
The toolset provides comprehensive coverage for the domain of document ingestion and management. It includes full CRUD operations for connections, namespaces, and documents, multiple ingestion methods (files, text, URLs, websites, sitemaps), search capabilities (semantic and hybrid), and utility functions like validation and status checks. There are no obvious gaps that would hinder agent workflows.
Average 2.9/5 across 25 of 25 tools scored. Lowest: 2.3/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is an update operation, implying mutation, but doesn't describe what happens during the update (e.g., whether it overwrites all configuration or merges partial updates, what permissions are required, if it's reversible, or potential side effects). For a complex mutation tool with 12 parameters, 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.
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 without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a basic description, though it could benefit from being more informative given the tool's complexity. The structure is front-loaded with the core 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?
Given the tool's high complexity (12 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is severely inadequate. It doesn't explain the namespace concept, parameter purposes, update behavior, or expected outcomes. For a mutation tool with extensive configuration options, this leaves the agent with insufficient context to use it effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the 12 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The tool description only vaguely mentions 'configuration parameters' without explaining what any of them do (e.g., namespaceId, fileStorageConfig, embeddingModelConfig). This fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation, leaving parameters semantically undefined.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool 'Updates an existing namespace with the provided configuration parameters,' which is a clear verb+resource combination. However, it's somewhat vague about what a 'namespace' represents in this context and doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like 'updateConnection' or 'updateDocuments.' The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity about the namespace concept.
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., that a namespace must already exist), when not to use it, or how it differs from similar tools like 'updateConnection' or 'createNamespace.' The agent receives no contextual usage information 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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is an update operation, implying mutation, but doesn't clarify permissions required, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what happens to unmatched documents. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency, leaving the agent uncertain about side effects or constraints.
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 core action ('Updates metadata for documents'). There's no wasted verbiage or redundancy. However, it could be more structured by briefly hinting at key parameters or usage scenarios, but as-is, it's appropriately concise for its limited content.
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 (5 parameters with nested objects, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the update semantics (e.g., partial vs. full updates), error handling, or return values. For a mutation tool with rich input schema but poor documentation, this leaves critical gaps in understanding how to invoke it successfully.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It mentions 'filter criteria' and 'metadata,' which loosely map to 'filterConfig' and 'data' parameters, but doesn't explain the purpose of 'namespaceId,' 'tenantId,' or the complex nested structures in 'data' (e.g., '$metadata' with '$set,' '$append,' '$remove'). This adds minimal value beyond the schema, failing to clarify parameter roles or usage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool 'Updates metadata for documents that match the specified filter criteria,' which provides a clear verb ('Updates') and resource ('metadata for documents'). However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from siblings like 'updateConnection' or 'updateNamespace,' nor does it specify what kind of metadata updates are possible (e.g., adding, removing, or modifying). The purpose is clear but lacks sibling distinction and specificity about the update operation.
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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing existing documents), exclusions (e.g., not for creating or deleting documents), or comparisons to siblings like 'deleteDocuments' or 'resyncDocuments.' Without such context, an agent might struggle to select this tool appropriately in a workflow.
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 offers minimal behavioral disclosure. It mentions pagination support and property inclusion but doesn't address permissions, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens when no documents match filters. For a read operation with complex filtering, 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately concise with two sentences that cover core functionality. It's front-loaded with the main purpose and follows with supporting features. No wasted words, though it could be more specific about what 'documents' refers to.
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 complex tool with 6 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the relationship between parameters, what the tool returns, error handling, or usage constraints. The agent would struggle to use this effectively without trial and error.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage and 6 parameters (including complex nested objects), the description provides almost no parameter guidance. It mentions 'filter criteria' and 'specific document properties' but doesn't explain what namespaceId, documentIds, pagination, tenantId, filterConfig, or includeConfig actually mean or how they interact.
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 ('Fetches documents') and resource ('from the namespace'), and mentions filter criteria, pagination, and property inclusion. It distinguishes itself from ingest/update/delete siblings but doesn't explicitly differentiate from search tools like semanticSearch or hybridSearch.
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. The description mentions filter criteria but doesn't specify when to use fetchDocuments versus search tools (semanticSearch, hybridSearch) or when filtering is required versus other document retrieval methods.
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 requirement for hybridConfig but doesn't describe the search behavior in detail (e.g., how results are returned, pagination, rate limits, or authentication needs). The phrase 'balancing between exact matches and semantic similarity' hints at behavior but lacks specificity.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with two sentences that are front-loaded: the first states the purpose, and the second adds a requirement. There's no unnecessary fluff, though it could be more informative without sacrificing brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (8 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on parameter usage, behavioral traits, and output format, making it insufficient for an AI agent to effectively invoke this tool without additional context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for all 8 parameters. It only mentions 'hybridConfig with weights for both search types', which partially explains one parameter. Other parameters like namespaceId, query, topK, scoreThreshold, filter, tenantId, and searchType are not addressed, leaving significant gaps in 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 tool's purpose: 'Performs a combined keyword and semantic search, balancing between exact matches and semantic similarity.' It specifies the verb ('performs'), resource ('search'), and method ('combined keyword and semantic'), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling 'semanticSearch' beyond mentioning the hybrid nature.
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 minimal guidance: it mentions that hybridConfig is required but doesn't explain when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'semanticSearch' or 'fetchDocuments'. No context on appropriate use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It mentions 'automatic parsing' but doesn't cover critical aspects like permissions, rate limits, error handling, or what 'ingests' entails (e.g., storage, indexing). This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief and front-loaded, with two sentences that efficiently state the core function. There's no wasted text, though it could benefit from more detail given 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?
For a mutation tool with 5 parameters, low schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It lacks details on behavior, parameters, and expected outcomes, making it incomplete for effective agent use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is low at 20%, with only chunkConfig having a description. The tool description adds no parameter details beyond the schema, failing to compensate for the coverage gap. It doesn't explain parameters like namespaceId, file, metadata, or tenantId, leaving them undocumented.
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 ('ingests') and resource ('a file into the namespace'), specifying the tool's purpose. It distinguishes from sibling tools like ingestText or ingestUrls by focusing on file ingestion, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with 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 ingestText or ingestUrls. The description mentions 'supports various file formats with automatic parsing,' which hints at context but lacks explicit when/when-not instructions 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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool ingests content and supports filtering/limits, but fails to describe critical behaviors: whether this is a read/write operation, what permissions are needed, if it's idempotent or destructive, rate limits, or what the output looks like. For a tool with complex parameters and no output schema, 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded, with two sentences that efficiently convey the core functionality and key features. There's no wasted verbiage, though it could benefit from more structured details given 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 tool's complexity (3 parameters with nested objects, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage), the description is incomplete. It lacks essential context: behavioral traits, parameter explanations, output expectations, and differentiation from siblings. This leaves the agent poorly equipped to use the tool effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description adds minimal value: it mentions 'path filtering' (hinting at 'includePaths'/'excludePaths') and 'link limits' (hinting at 'maxLinks'), but doesn't explain the purpose of 'namespaceId', 'tenantId', 'metadata', or 'chunkConfig', nor does it clarify parameter formats or constraints. This insufficiently compensates for the coverage gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Ingests content from a website using its sitemap.xml.' This specifies the verb ('ingests'), resource ('content from a website'), and mechanism ('using its sitemap.xml'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'ingestWebsite' or 'ingestUrls', which likely have overlapping functionality.
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 'Supports path filtering and link limits,' which hints at capabilities but doesn't specify scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. With siblings like 'ingestWebsite' and 'ingestUrls' available, this lack of comparative context leaves the agent guessing about appropriate use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the destructive nature ('permanently deletes'), which is critical, but lacks details on permissions required, rate limits, confirmation prompts, error handling, or what happens to associated data. This is a significant gap for a high-impact 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 key action ('permanently deletes') and resource. There is no wasted verbiage, 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?
For a destructive tool with 4 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It lacks details on behavioral traits, parameter usage, return values, and error conditions, leaving critical 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.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'filter criteria' which hints at the 'filterConfig' parameter, but doesn't explain the four parameters (namespaceId, documentIds, tenantId, filterConfig) or their relationships. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema's structure.
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 ('permanently deletes') and resource ('documents'), specifying it applies to those matching filter criteria. It distinguishes from siblings like 'updateDocuments' or 'fetchDocuments' by focusing on deletion, but doesn't explicitly contrast with similar destructive tools like 'deleteNamespace'.
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 doesn't mention prerequisites, constraints, or suggest other tools for related operations like 'updateDocuments' for modifications or 'fetchDocuments' for retrieval before deletion.
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. It discloses the permanent nature of deletion ('permanently deletes'), which is a critical behavioral trait. However, it lacks other important details such as authentication requirements, error conditions (e.g., if namespace doesn't exist), or side effects (e.g., impact on related documents).
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 and front-loaded, directly stating the core action without unnecessary elaboration.
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 this is a destructive operation with no annotations, no output schema, and 2 parameters (one undocumented), the description is incomplete. It should address permissions, consequences, and parameter details to adequately guide an agent in a high-stakes deletion context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only mentions 'namespaceId' as a parameter, ignoring 'tenantId' entirely. This leaves half of the parameters undocumented, failing to add meaningful semantics beyond the bare 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 ('permanently deletes') and resource ('a namespace by its ID'), providing specific verb+resource pairing. However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'deleteDocuments' or 'updateNamespace' which also involve namespace operations, missing explicit 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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., whether the namespace must be empty), exclusions, or reference sibling tools like 'listNamespaces' for selection or 'updateNamespace' for modifications instead of deletion.
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 fetching content, which implies a read operation, but lacks details on permissions (e.g., whether 'apiKey' or 'tenantId' are required for access), rate limits, error handling, or what the returned content includes (e.g., raw HTML, parsed text). This leaves significant gaps for a tool with three parameters.
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 with two sentences that are front-loaded and waste no words. Every phrase adds value, such as specifying the tool's focus on parsed text files, making it efficient and well-structured.
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 tool with three parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover key aspects like authentication needs, return format, error cases, or how it differs from sibling tools, leaving the agent with insufficient information for reliable use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for three undocumented parameters. It only mentions 'URL' implicitly and adds context for 'parsed text file URLs,' but doesn't explain the purpose of 'apiKey' or 'tenantId,' their relationships, or any constraints. This fails to adequately clarify parameter meanings beyond the basic 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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('fetches') and resource ('content of a URL'), and adds a helpful detail about parsed text files. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'fetchDocuments' or 'ingestUrls', which appear related but have different functions.
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 minimal guidance with 'Particularly useful for fetching parsed text file URLs,' which implies a preferred context but doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'fetchDocuments' or 'ingestUrls' from the sibling list. No explicit when-not-to-use or prerequisite information is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it 'retrieves details,' implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify if it requires authentication, has rate limits, or what details are returned. For a tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, this is insufficient 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 with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, 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 complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return values, parameter interactions, or behavioral traits like error handling. For a retrieval tool in a context with many sibling tools, more detail is needed to guide effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It only mentions 'ID' (likely referring to 'connectionId'), ignoring 'namespaceId' and 'tenantId'. This leaves two parameters unexplained, failing to add meaningful semantics beyond the minimal 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 ('Retrieves details') and resource ('for a specific connection by its ID'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'listConnections' or 'getNamespace', which would require mentioning it fetches a single connection rather than listing multiple.
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 'listConnections' for multiple connections or 'getNamespace' for namespace details. It lacks context about prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool checks status, which implies a read-only operation, but fails to detail critical aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what the status output entails (e.g., pending, completed, failed). This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.
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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary words. Every part earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.
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 moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, parameter meanings, and expected outputs, failing to provide enough context for effective use by an AI agent. The conciseness does not compensate for these substantive gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It mentions 'previously submitted ingestion job,' which hints at 'ingestJobRunId,' but does not explain the semantics of 'namespaceId' or 'tenantId,' or clarify that only 'ingestJobRunId' is required. This adds minimal value beyond the schema's structure.
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 ('Checks the status') and resource ('a previously submitted ingestion job'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'ingestConnector' or 'ingestFile', which might involve status checks indirectly, so it falls short of 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 minimal guidance by implying usage after job submission ('previously submitted'), but it lacks explicit when-to-use instructions, alternatives (e.g., vs. 'fetchDocuments' for results), or prerequisites. No clear context for choosing this over other tools is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Retrieves', implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify permissions, rate limits, error handling, or response format. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves beyond basic functionality.
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 is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every part of the sentence contributes essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (2 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what a namespace is, what data it returns, or how parameters interact. For a retrieval tool in a system with many siblings, more context is needed to ensure the agent can use it correctly without trial and error.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It mentions 'namespaceId' but not 'tenantId', leaving one parameter unexplained. The description adds minimal semantic context beyond the schema, failing to clarify parameter relationships (e.g., if tenantId is optional or required with namespaceId).
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 ('Retrieves') and resource ('a specific namespace by its ID'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like 'listNamespaces' by specifying retrieval of a single namespace rather than listing multiple. However, it doesn't explicitly mention what a namespace contains or its context, leaving some room for improvement.
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 'listNamespaces' or 'getConnection'. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a namespace ID), exclusions, or typical use cases. Without such context, the agent must infer usage from the tool name and parameters 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool ingests content, implying a write operation, but doesn't mention permissions required, side effects (e.g., overwriting existing data), rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. The mention of 'optional metadata and chunk configuration' adds minimal context 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 that front-loads the core action and adds brief details about optional features. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration, 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 complexity (3 parameters with nested objects, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, full parameter meanings, return values, and usage context. For a write operation tool with multiple parameters, this minimal description leaves significant gaps for an agent to operate effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It mentions 'optional metadata and chunk configuration,' which partially explains two nested parameters (metadata and chunkConfig), but ignores namespaceId, tenantId, and required fields like source and text. This leaves key parameters unexplained, failing to adequately supplement 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 ('ingests') and resource ('raw text content into the namespace'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like ingestFile, ingestUrls, etc., by specifying text content, but doesn't explicitly contrast with ingestConnector or other ingest methods beyond mentioning 'raw text content'.
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 ingestFile, ingestUrls, or ingestConnector. It mentions optional metadata and chunk configuration, but doesn't specify use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'crawls and ingests' (implying a write/mutation operation) and 'recursively' (suggesting traversal behavior), but lacks critical details: required permissions, rate limits, whether it's asynchronous (e.g., job-based), what 'ingests' entails (e.g., storing in a namespace), or error handling. This is inadequate for a complex ingestion 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 highly concise and front-loaded: two sentences that directly state the core functionality and key features. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff. It efficiently communicates the essence without unnecessary elaboration.
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 (recursive crawling, ingestion, multiple parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It omits crucial context: what 'ingests' means operationally (e.g., where content goes), whether it's a long-running job, how to monitor progress (sibling 'getIngestJobRunStatus' hints at this), or what the return value is. This leaves significant gaps for an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It only vaguely references 'depth control and path filtering,' which maps to 'maxDepth', 'includePaths', and 'excludePaths' in the schema, but ignores other key parameters like 'namespaceId', 'chunkConfig', 'tenantId', and 'metadata'. With 3 top-level parameters and nested objects, this leaves most semantics unexplained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Crawls and ingests content from a website recursively.' It specifies the verb ('crawls and ingests'), resource ('content from a website'), and scope ('recursively'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'ingestUrls' or 'fetchUrlContent', 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 minimal usage guidance. It mentions 'Supports depth control and path filtering,' which hints at when to use it for recursive crawling with filters, but offers no explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives like 'ingestUrls' (for specific URLs) or 'ingestSitemap' (for sitemap-based ingestion). No prerequisites or exclusions are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool 'revokes access' and 'removes integration', which implies a destructive mutation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is reversible, what permissions are needed, what happens to associated data, or error conditions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, front-loaded with the core action, zero waste. Every word earns its place by conveying the essential purpose without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive mutation tool with 3 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It lacks details on parameters, behavioral implications, error handling, and what happens post-revocation, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'specific connection' which hints at the 'connectionId' parameter, but doesn't explain the purpose of 'namespaceId' or 'tenantId', leaving two of three parameters undocumented. This adds minimal value 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 ('revokes access') and target ('specific connection'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'deleteConnection' by focusing on access revocation rather than deletion. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings like 'updateConnection' or 'getConnection'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'deleteConnection' or 'updateConnection'. The description implies usage for removing integrations but doesn't specify prerequisites, consequences, or when other tools might be more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool performs semantic search but doesn't describe what the search returns (e.g., documents, snippets, scores), whether it's paginated, rate-limited, or has authentication requirements. For a search tool with 7 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in 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, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose. It's front-loaded with the main action and avoids unnecessary words. Every part of the sentence earns its place by defining the tool's unique semantic approach.
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 (7 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return values, parameter usage, or behavioral traits. For a semantic search tool with rich input options, more context is needed to guide effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the 7 parameters are documented in the schema. The description mentions 'namespace' and 'query' implicitly but doesn't explain any parameters like 'topK', 'scoreThreshold', 'filter', 'tenantId', or 'searchType'. It adds minimal semantic value beyond what's inferable from the tool name.
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: 'Performs semantic search across the namespace to find relevant content based on meaning rather than exact keyword matches.' This specifies the verb ('performs semantic search'), resource ('across the namespace'), and distinguishes semantic from keyword-based search. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling 'hybridSearch', which is a similar search tool.
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 semantic search but doesn't explain when to choose it over 'hybridSearch' or other search-related siblings. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative 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 provided, the description carries full burden but is incomplete. It mentions generating an authorization URL and user document selection, but omits critical behavioral details like required permissions, whether this is a read-only or destructive operation, rate limits, or what happens to existing connections. The description adds some context but 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.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is moderately concise but could be more front-loaded. The first sentence states the purpose, but subsequent sentences mix parameter details with behavioral explanations, creating some redundancy (e.g., repeating 'update' scenarios). It earns its place but lacks optimal structure.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 5 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It covers basic purpose and one parameter but misses most parameter meanings, behavioral traits, and output details. For a complex update tool, this leaves too many gaps for effective agent use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate but only addresses 1 of 5 parameters ('clientRedirectUrl'). It mentions 'connector parameter' (not in schema) and ignores 'namespaceId', 'connectionId', 'name', and 'tenantId'. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the bare 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 tool 'updates a connection to a specific source' with specific actions like updating to a different source, clientRedirectUrl, or document selection. It distinguishes from siblings like 'createConnection' (creation vs update) and 'getConnection' (read vs update), though not all sibling distinctions are explicit.
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 scenarios ('useful if you want to update...') for updating source, redirect URL, or documents, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'revokeConnection' or 'resyncDocuments'. No clear exclusions or prerequisites are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a creation operation but doesn't mention permissions required, whether the operation is idempotent, what happens on conflict, rate limits, or what the response contains. For a complex creation tool with 6 parameters and nested objects, 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is efficiently structured in a single sentence that states the action and enumerates the main configuration areas. It's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, though it could benefit from a second sentence about behavioral aspects or usage context.
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 complex creation tool with 6 parameters, nested objects, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what a 'namespace' represents in this context, doesn't cover error conditions, doesn't describe the return value, and leaves behavioral aspects unspecified. The agent would struggle to use this tool correctly without additional 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 description lists four required parameter categories (name, file storage, vector storage, embedding model) which helps understand the scope, but with 0% schema description coverage and 6 total parameters (including optional webScraperConfig and tenantId), it doesn't fully compensate. It provides high-level semantic grouping but lacks details about parameter formats, constraints, or relationships.
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: 'Creates a new namespace with the provided configuration.' It specifies the verb ('creates') and resource ('namespace'), but doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'createConnection' or 'updateNamespace' beyond the resource name. The description is specific about what gets created but lacks sibling comparison.
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, when-not-to-use scenarios, or compare with sibling tools like 'updateNamespace' or 'getNamespace'. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone, which is insufficient for proper selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions that 'Ids are already in the backlog when picked through the picker' and the need for re-authorization if not, which adds some behavioral context about prerequisites. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, what 'ingests' entails (e.g., processing, storage), or error handling, leaving significant gaps for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized with three sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence adds relevant information about the ingestion scope and authorization flow, with minimal waste, though it could be slightly more structured for 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 tool's complexity (mutation with 3 parameters, nested objects, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It covers the purpose and some behavioral aspects but misses parameter explanations, output details, and fuller context on usage versus siblings, making it inadequate for safe and effective tool invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for three parameters (namespaceId, ingestConfig, tenantId) with nested objects. The description does not mention any parameters, their meanings, or how they relate to the ingestion process (e.g., what namespaceId or ingestConfig.source represents). This fails to add value beyond the bare 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 tool 'ingests all documents in the connector that are in backlog or failed status,' specifying the verb (ingests), resource (documents in connector), and scope (backlog/failed status). It distinguishes from sibling tools like ingestFile, ingestUrls, etc., which handle different ingestion sources, but doesn't explicitly name these alternatives.
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 by mentioning 'backlog or failed status' and the authorization flow requirement, suggesting when to use it (for retrying failed/backlogged ingestions). However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like ingestFile or ingestUrls, nor does it provide clear exclusions or prerequisites beyond the authorization note.
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 provides minimal behavioral disclosure. 'Ingests' implies a write/mutation operation, but there's no information about permissions required, rate limits, side effects, or what 'ingests' actually means operationally. The mention of 'scraping options and metadata' hints at capabilities but lacks specifics about behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second adds key capabilities. However, it's arguably too brief given the tool's complexity and lack of annotations, potentially sacrificing completeness for brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a complex ingestion tool with 3 parameters, nested objects, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'ingests' means operationally, what happens to the ingested content, error conditions, or return values. The lack of behavioral context and incomplete parameter coverage makes this insufficient for safe agent 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 0%, so the description must compensate but only partially does. It mentions 'list of URLs' (mapping to urls array), 'scraping options' (mapping to scrapeOptions), and 'metadata' (mapping to metadata object), covering 3 of the 6 nested parameters. However, it omits namespaceId, tenantId, chunkConfig, and the required source field, leaving significant 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 tool's purpose: 'Ingests content from a list of URLs' specifies the verb (ingests) and resource (content from URLs). It distinguishes from siblings like ingestFile, ingestText, and ingestWebsite by focusing on URL lists, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from fetchUrlContent which might have overlapping functionality.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions 'Supports scraping options and metadata' but doesn't clarify when to choose ingestUrls over ingestWebsite, ingestSitemap, or fetchUrlContent. No prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative context 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states it's a list operation with optional filtering. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it's read-only (implied but not stated), pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'current namespace' means contextually. For a tool with no annotations, 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 front-loads the core purpose ('Lists all connections') and adds optional detail ('optionally filtered by connector type'). There's no wasted text, and it's appropriately sized for a list operation.
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, no output schema, and low parameter coverage (0% schema description, only 1 of 3 params mentioned in description), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values, error conditions, or the context of 'current namespace' versus parameters like 'namespaceId'. For a tool with three parameters and no structured documentation, this is inadequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate but only mentions 'connector type' filtering, which corresponds to the 'connector' parameter with enum values. It doesn't explain 'namespaceId' or 'tenantId' parameters, leaving two of three parameters undocumented. The description adds minimal value beyond what the schema's enum suggests for one parameter.
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 ('Lists') and resource ('connections for the current namespace'), with optional filtering by connector type. It distinguishes from siblings like 'getConnection' (singular) and 'createConnection' (write operation). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other list operations like 'listNamespaces' beyond the resource name.
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 to list connections, optionally filtered by type, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'getConnection' for a specific connection or 'createConnection' for creating new ones. It mentions filtering capability but doesn't specify scenarios where filtering is beneficial.
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 'reprocesses' and 'updating', which imply a mutation operation, but doesn't specify whether this is destructive, requires specific permissions, has rate limits, or what the reprocessing entails. The behavioral context is insufficient 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 concise and front-loaded, consisting of two sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and a key use case. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured.
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 (4 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on parameter usage, behavioral traits, and expected outcomes, making it inadequate for a mutation tool with multiple input options.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters. It mentions 'filter criteria' but doesn't detail what parameters are available (e.g., namespaceId, documentIds, filterConfig) or their purposes. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's inputs.
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 ('reprocesses') and resource ('documents'), and mentions the filter criteria. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'updateDocuments' or 'deleteDocuments', which might also operate on documents with filters.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides some context ('useful for updating after schema changes'), which implies when to use it, but doesn't offer explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'updateDocuments' or 'deleteDocuments'. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool creates a connection (implying a write/mutation operation) and describes the OAuth-like flow with user redirection and document selection. However, it lacks critical behavioral details: whether this is idempotent, what permissions are required, error handling, rate limits, or what happens if a connection already exists. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized with three sentences. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by parameter guidance and behavioral context. There's minimal waste, though the last sentence about user document selection could be integrated more tightly. Overall, it's efficient and well-structured.
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 (5 parameters, mutation operation, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and some parameter semantics but misses critical context: no output details (what does it return?), no error handling, no prerequisites, and incomplete parameter documentation. For a tool that initiates authentication flows, this leaves significant gaps for an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that 'connector' should be a valid SourceSync connector enum value and that 'clientRedirectUrl' is optional for custom redirects. However, it doesn't mention the other 3 parameters (namespaceId, name, tenantId), leaving them undocumented. The description adds some value for 2 out of 5 parameters but doesn't fully compensate for the coverage gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool creates a new connection to a specific source, which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from siblings like 'getConnection' (read) and 'updateConnection' (modify), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'ingestConnector' which might be related. The purpose is clear but sibling differentiation could be more explicit.
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 by mentioning that it 'gives you an authorization url which you can redirect the user to' and that 'the user will then be asked to pick the documents they want to ingest.' This suggests the tool is for setting up authentication flows for document ingestion. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like 'ingestConnector' or 'ingestFile', nor does it mention 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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it's a list operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't cover critical aspects like pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements beyond the API key mention, error conditions, or return format. 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 front-loads the core purpose ('Lists all namespaces') and adds necessary context without waste. Every word earns its place, making it 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 low complexity (1 optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and parameter context but lacks details on behavior, output, or usage guidelines. With no annotations to fill gaps, it should do more to be fully complete, but it meets the baseline for a simple list tool.
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 description adds meaningful context for the single parameter by explaining that 'tenantId' is optional and relates to filtering namespaces 'available for the current API key and optional tenant ID'. Since schema description coverage is 0% (the schema only specifies type without description), this compensates well, though it could specify format or constraints to reach a 5.
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 ('Lists') and resource ('all namespaces') with scope ('available for the current API key and optional tenant ID'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'getNamespace' or 'createNamespace', which would require a 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 like 'getNamespace' (for a single namespace) or 'listConnections' (for a different resource). It mentions the 'optional tenant ID' parameter but doesn't explain when it should or shouldn't be used, leaving usage context implied at best.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the behavior of attempting to list namespaces and returning them on success, which indicates a read-only operation that may fail if the key is invalid. However, it does not detail error handling, rate limits, or authentication specifics, leaving gaps in behavioral context for a validation 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 two sentences that are front-loaded with the purpose and efficiently cover validation method and outcome. Every sentence adds essential information with zero waste, making it appropriately sized and well-structured for quick understanding.
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 complete enough to understand its basic function. However, for a validation tool, it lacks details on error responses or failure modes, which could be important for agent handling. With no output schema, it should ideally explain return values more thoroughly, but it does state the return on success.
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 value by explaining the validation mechanism and return behavior, which compensates for the lack of parameters, making it clear what the tool does without input. Baseline is 4 for 0 parameters as per rules.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('validates') and resource ('API key'), and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying the validation method ('by attempting to list namespaces') and outcome ('Returns the list of namespaces if successful'). This is precise and differentiates it from tools like 'listNamespaces' which would list namespaces without validation focus.
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 stating it validates the API key, suggesting it should be used to check API key validity, likely before other operations. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives (e.g., using 'listNamespaces' directly if validation is not needed), so it lacks explicit exclusions or named alternatives.
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:

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

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

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

Latest Blog Posts

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

MCP directory API

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

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/sitegpt/sourcesyncai-mcp'

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