Node.js API Documentation MCP Server

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct Node.js module or the search functionality, with no overlapping purposes. The search tool is clearly differentiated for discovery.
Naming Consistency4/5
Most tools follow the pattern 'get_api_for-<module>' with hyphens. The search tool deviates with a different verb and structure, but the majority are consistent.
Tool Count4/5
38 tools cover a broad range of Node.js modules, appropriate for a comprehensive documentation server. Slightly on the high end but justified.
Completeness4/5
Covers many core modules; search tool aids navigation. Missing some niche modules but no obvious dead ends for typical use.
Average 2.1/5 across 38 of 38 tools scored. Lowest: 1.3/5.
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
Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.
If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.
MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

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

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

How is the quality score calculated?

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

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

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

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

Tool Scores

Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. 'Node.js API: Util' provides no behavioral traits, such as return format, read-only status, or side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single phrase, but it is under-specified and fails to convey essential information. It is not concise; it is incomplete.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity but lack of annotations and output schema, the description is severely lacking. It should at minimum state that it retrieves util module API documentation.
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?
Input schema has 3 parameters (class, method, required) with 67% description coverage. The tool description 'Node.js API: Util' adds no meaning beyond the schema's descriptions for 'class' and 'method'.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description is 'Node.js API: Util', which is essentially a tautology with the tool name. It does not specify what the tool does, such as retrieving API documentation for the util module.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
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 its many siblings (e.g., get_api_for-assert, search-nodejs-modules-api-documentation). No context provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, and the description fails to disclose any behavioral traits (e.g., what the tool returns, whether it's read-only, or any side effects). The description carries the full burden but provides no behavioral information.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While the description is short (one phrase), it is under-specified and does not earn its place. It lacks structure or front-loading of useful information, making it unhelpful despite its brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema, no annotations, and only two optional parameters, the description must explain the return value and usage context. It fails to do so, leaving the tool's full functionality ambiguous.
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 input schema includes descriptions for 'class' and 'method' parameters, covering 67% of the schema. However, the tool description adds no additional meaning or context about how these parameters affect the tool's behavior, leaving them underdefined.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Node.js API: Buffer' vaguely suggests the tool relates to Node.js Buffer API, but it does not specify the action (e.g., get, search, list). This leaves the agent guessing the tool's core function.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
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 sibling tools like 'get_api_for-assert' or 'search-nodejs-modules-api-documentation'. The agent has no context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure, but it says nothing about side effects, authorization requirements, rate limits, or even what the tool does (e.g., is it a read-only lookup?). The description is silent on behavior beyond the tool name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short but lacks substance. Conciseness is about efficient, valuable content; here, it is under-specified, not concise. A single ambiguous phrase is insufficient for a useful tool definition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has no output schema, so the description should explain what the tool returns. It does not. The agent has no idea whether the output is a list, a string, or structured data. Given the complexity of Node.js API documentation, this omission is critical.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds no meaning beyond the input schema, which already provides descriptions for 'class' and 'method'. Schema coverage is ~67% (2 of 3 parameters documented), but the description does not compensate for the missing parameter explanation or add context like constraints or expected format.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Node.js API: Child process' merely restates the tool's name ('get_api_for-child_process') without specifying the action (e.g., retrieve, list, search) or what the tool actually returns. It fails to clarify whether this tool provides a list of classes, methods, or full documentation, leaving the purpose ambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
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 its many siblings (e.g., get_api_for-http, search-nodejs-modules-api-documentation). There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or alternative tools, so the agent has no basis for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description offers no behavioral traits. It does not disclose whether the tool performs a read operation, has authentication requirements, or any side effects. The description is a bare label with no 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.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short but at the expense of clarity. It does not earn its place because it provides almost no useful information for an agent selecting or invoking the tool. A longer, more informative description would be appropriate.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity and lack of annotations/output schema, the description is woefully incomplete. It does not explain the tool's purpose (retrieving API docs for Node.js Events module) or provide any context for correct usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds no information about the parameters (class and method) beyond what is already in the input schema. While the schema has descriptions, the tool description fails to clarify their purpose or usage context, missing an opportunity to add value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Node.js API: Events' is vague and does not use a specific verb-resource structure. It resembles a label rather than a clear statement of what the tool does. While it distinguishes from sibling tools by module name, it lacks a verb like 'retrieve' or 'get' and does not clarify the action.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidance is provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools (e.g., for other modules) or the alternative search tool. There are no when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description discloses no behavioral traits (e.g., network calls, caching, mutability). The agent learns nothing about side effects or constraints of invoking this tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short but under-specified. It does not earn its place as it provides insufficient information. A single vague sentence without structure is not genuinely concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and incomplete parameters, the description is entirely inadequate. It fails to explain what the tool returns, how to use it, or any important context for a simple API lookup tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 67% (2 of 3 parameters have descriptions). The description adds no meaning beyond the schema; the 'required' parameter is undocumented even in schema. Description fails to compensate for the missing parameter details.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Node.js API: Readline' is vague. It states the resource but not the action (e.g., 'retrieves', 'lists', 'searches'). It does not differentiate from siblings beyond the module name, lacking a specific verb or purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
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. There are many sibling tools for different Node.js modules, but the description provides no context for selection or exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits (e.g., read-only, required parameters, return format). It says nothing about behavior, side effects, prerequisites, or what the tool returns.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely brief but not usefully concise. It is a single phrase that does not convey the tool's function. A good description should be concise yet informative; this is under-specified.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and minimal schema description coverage, the description fails to provide a complete picture of what the tool does. It does not explain return values, typical use cases, or edge cases, making it inadequate for reliable AI agent 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?
The schema covers 67% with descriptions for 'class' and 'method', but the description adds no additional meaning. The undocumented parameter (likely 'required' or similar) is not explained, and the description does not clarify how parameters interact (e.g., are both needed?).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Node.js API: SQLite' is just a label indicating the module. It does not state what the tool does (e.g., retrieve documentation, list APIs). The name 'get_api_for' suggests retrieval, but the description lacks a verb-action, making it ambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs siblings like 'get_api_for-http' or 'search-nodejs-modules-api-documentation'. The description provides no context for choosing SQLite over other modules.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. Description lacks any behavioral context (e.g., read-only, mutability, error conditions, return structure). Agent cannot infer tool behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely short (one phrase) but at the cost of informativeness. It is under-specified rather than concise. No structure beyond a label-like statement.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and vague description, the tool is incomplete. Agent has insufficient information to use it correctly, especially among numerous similar siblings.
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 has high description coverage (67%), but the description adds no meaning beyond the schema's own parameter descriptions. No explanation of how to use class/method or expected format.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description 'Node.js API: Test runner' is vague; it restates the tool's name without specifying the action (e.g., retrieve, list, search). It fails to indicate what the tool does beyond associating with the test runner module.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
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. Sibling tools cover many modules, but there is no differentiation or context for selecting this one.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description provides no behavioral information beyond the tool's domain. With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden of disclosing traits such as side effects, permissions, return format, or pagination. It lacks any such details, leaving the agent uninformed about what the tool does when invoked.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is too short. While brevity is valued, this description is under-specified and provides no substantive information beyond what is already implied by the tool name. It fails to earn its place, as it adds no value for the agent.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's numerous sibling tools and the lack of annotations or output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what kind of results to expect, how to filter by class or method, or how this differs from searching all Node.js documentation. 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 input schema already includes descriptions for both parameters (class and method), giving a schema description coverage of 100% based on inspection. According to the rubric, with high coverage the baseline is 3. The description does not add additional meaning or context for the parameters, so a score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Node.js API: DNS' is essentially a tautology with the tool name 'get_api_for-dns'. It does not state a specific verb or resource beyond what the name implies, making the purpose vague. It fails to clarify that the tool likely returns DNS-related API documentation, and does not distinguish it from sibling tools that also target other Node.js modules.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool versus its many siblings (e.g., get_api_for-http, get_api_for-fs) or the sibling 'search-nodejs-modules-api-documentation'. There are no indications of prerequisites, context, or when not to use this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It offers none: no mention of side effects, permissions, or response characteristics. The description is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (four words) but at the cost of informativeness. It is under-specified for an effective tool description, lacking any structure or front-loaded key details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of an output schema and partial schema coverage, the description should provide comprehensive context. It does not. The tool's complexity (a documentation lookup) is not high, but the description is still too sparse to be complete.
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 has 67% coverage, but the description adds no additional meaning to the parameters. It does not explain how 'class' and 'method' are used together or what 'required' means (likely a schema error). The description fails to compensate for the missing parameter documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Node.js API: REPL' is vague. It identifies the resource (REPL) but does not state the verb or action (e.g., retrieve, search, list). Compared to sibling tools, it is clear that this tool is for API documentation, but the description itself lacks specificity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings. The tool name and context imply it is for REPL-related queries, but there is no explicit mention of usage context, prerequisites, or alternatives like 'search-nodejs-modules-api-documentation'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description contains no behavioral information such as side effects, read-only nature, rate limits, or output format. For a likely read-only documentation lookup, the description should disclose that it returns API documentation and does not mutate data.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely short (5 words) but under-specified. Conciseness without substance is not valuable; the description sacrifices informativeness for brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and a high number of sibling tools, the description is critically incomplete. It provides no details on return values, error conditions, or how the tool integrates with the broader set of Node.js API tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema covers both parameters with descriptions (67% coverage reported, but actual schema shows 2 params with descriptions), but the tool description adds no extra meaning. It fails to explain how 'class' and 'method' parameters relate to the Stream API (e.g., Node.js class vs. method scope), leaving ambiguity.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Node.js API: Stream' is a label rather than an explanation. It does not specify an action (e.g., retrieve, list, search) and only identifies the API domain. Among siblings, it weakly implies it's for the Stream module, but the purpose is vague.
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 siblings like get_api_for-http or search-nodejs-modules-api-documentation. The context of sibling names implies module-specific retrieval, but the description lacks any explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use information.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as read-only, destructive actions, or side effects. The agent has no information about what happens when the tool is invoked.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise but at the cost of utility. It consists of a single noun phrase that does not convey the tool's purpose or usage, making it under-specified.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is insufficient for understanding the tool's behavior, output, or proper invocation. Given the absence of annotations and output schema, the agent cannot reliably select or use this tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds no meaning to the parameters beyond what is already in the schema. While schema descriptions exist for 'class' and 'method', the tool description fails to explain how these parameters influence the output or how to use them.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Node.js API: Timers' restates the tool name without specifying what action the tool performs (e.g., retrieve, get, fetch). It lacks a verb and does not clarify the resource or scope, making it a tautology.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs. siblings like 'search-nodejs-modules-api-documentation' or other module-specific tools. Does not mention prerequisites or alternative tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations and a minimal description, the agent is left unaware of the tool's behavior. No mention of side effects, permissions, data safety, or return format. The description fails to disclose that this is a read-only API lookup tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely brief (one line), but it sacrifices clarity for brevity. It is under-specified rather than concise. A concise description would still convey the verb and scope without being vague.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of output schema and the tool's likely role in retrieving API documentation, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what the tool returns or how to interpret results, leaving significant gaps for the agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides clear descriptions for the two parameters (class and method), achieving 100% coverage for actual parameters. The tool description adds no extra semantic value beyond the schema, meeting the baseline for a case with good schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Node.js API: Zlib' is a label rather than a clear statement of the tool's action. It lacks a verb and doesn't specify whether the tool retrieves, searches, or lists API information. The name suggests a retrieval function, but the description provides minimal clarity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
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 its siblings (other module-specific tools). There is no information about context, prerequisites, or alternatives, leaving the agent without direction for appropriate invocation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral transparency. It fails to disclose any behavioral traits such as what the tool returns, side effects, permissions needed, or rate limits. The description is merely a label.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise but at the cost of completeness. Every sentence should add value; here, a single phrase repeats the tool's purpose without elaboration, making it under-specified.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity and lack of output schema, the description should clarify what documentation is retrieved and how to use parameters. It fails to do so, leaving critical gaps in understanding the tool's functionality.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema includes 'class' and 'method' parameters with descriptions, covering 67% of parameters. The description adds no additional meaning to these parameters, nor does it explain their usage or format, failing to compensate for the incomplete schema coverage.
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 'Node.js API: Cluster' indicates the tool provides API documentation for the Node.js Cluster module, distinguishing it from sibling tools focusing on other modules. However, it lacks a clear verb like 'retrieve' or 'search' and does not specify the action taken.
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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While sibling tools are for different modules, the description offers no context on prerequisites, use cases, or when to choose this specific tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description gives no behavioral information such as side effects, permissions, or rate limits. The tool performs a read operation but this is not stated.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely short but at the expense of necessary detail. The description is under-specified and does not earn its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's purpose (retrieving API documentation), the description is incomplete: it does not mention what is returned, how search works, or the severity of the schema coverage gap. A user cannot confidently use this tool from the description alone.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds no information about parameters beyond what the input schema provides. While the schema includes descriptions for class and method, the description does not clarify their use or relationship.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Node.js API: Console' is a tautology that merely rephrases the tool name. It does not specify the action (e.g., retrieve, search) or differentiate from siblings like get_api_for-assert, leaving the exact purpose unclear.
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 other get_api_for-* tools or the search tool. The description lacks context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits (e.g., read-only, side effects, return format). The description is too minimal to provide transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is very concise (5 words) but does not earn its place as it provides minimal value. Lack of structure and meaningful content makes it ineffective.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity and lack of output schema or annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what the tool does, how to use it, or what results to expect.
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?
Input schema already describes parameters 'class' and 'method' with brief descriptions. Description does not add any additional semantics, but schema coverage is high, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description is 'Node.js API: Assert', which is a label rather than a clear statement of purpose. It does not specify an action (e.g., 'get documentation for') or differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_api_for-buffer'.
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. Sibling tools are similar for different modules, but the description does not mention any selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; description does not disclose any behavioral details (e.g., read-only, network fetch, auth requirements). Completely opaque.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely short (4 words) but at the cost of clarity. Not efficiently informative; lacks essential context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema, no annotations. Description fails to explain what the tool returns, how it works, or how to use parameters effectively. Incomplete for a lookup tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema already describes parameters (class, method) with basic descriptions. Description adds no additional meaning; baseline score given schema coverage is high.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description 'Node.js API: Crypto' is vague and tautological; restates the module name without specifying the action (e.g., retrieve documentation). Does not clearly differentiate from siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., other get_api_for-* tools). Implicitly for crypto, but no explicit context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses no behavioral traits. There are no annotations to compensate. The agent learns nothing about side effects, required permissions, or output format.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely short but under-specified. A single phrase does not adequately describe the tool's functionality, making it incomplete rather than concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 3 parameters (though 2 are actual inputs), no output schema, and no annotations, the description should provide more context about return values, search behavior, or usage. It fails to do so.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already describes the two parameters (class, method) with reasonable clarity. The description adds no further meaning, but the schema coverage is high for the actual parameters, so baseline 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Node.js API: Domain' is a noun phrase that restates the tool name without providing a verb or clarifying the action. It does not distinguish this tool from siblings that target other Node.js modules.
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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks any context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or comparison to sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It fails to state any side effects, return structure, or constraints (e.g., whether it requires internet, returns documentation text, etc.). 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.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, but it is under-specified. A single phrase lacks the structure to convey essential information. Every sentence should add value; here, the description does not earn its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of an output schema and the presence of many sibling tools, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain what the tool returns, how the parameters interact, or any prerequisites. For a tool with three parameters, this is wholly insufficient.
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 input schema provides basic descriptions for two of the three parameters (class and method), meeting 67% coverage. The tool description adds no additional meaning or context for any parameter, leaving the agent to rely solely on the schema's sparse descriptions.
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 'Node.js API: HTTPS' vaguely identifies the tool's domain but does not explicitly state the action (e.g., retrieve documentation, search). Combined with the name 'get_api_for-https', it is somewhat clear, but as a standalone description it lacks specificity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
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 its many siblings (e.g., other modules) or the search tool. The description offers no contextual cues for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. The description gives no behavioral details such as whether the tool is read-only, what it returns, or how it handles optional parameters.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise (5 words) but at the expense of utility. The brevity omits critical information, making it under-specified rather than efficiently clear.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 3 optional parameters, many sibling tools, and no output schema, the description is grossly incomplete. It fails to specify return values, search behavior, or how it differs from other get_api_for-* tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already describes 'class' and 'method' (2 of 3 parameters), but the description adds no additional context about their usage or semantics. The third parameter ('required' array) is unexplained in both schema and description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Node.js API: Punycode' is essentially a restatement of the tool name with the module specified. It lacks a verb or clear action, making it unclear whether the tool retrieves, lists, or searches API documentation.
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 its many siblings (e.g., get_api_for-assert, etc.). There is no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses no behavioral traits (e.g., read-only, authentication needs, side effects). Simply labels the module.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence, but it lacks substance. It is not wasteful but also not informative beyond a label.
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?
No output schema and little context. Does not explain return format, how to use parameters, or what the tool yields. Incomplete for a lookup tool with many siblings.
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 already describes 'class' and 'method' as search targets. The description adds no extra meaning, achieving baseline despite schema coverage being high.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Node.js API: VM (executing JavaScript)' identifies the module but lacks a verb explaining what the tool does (e.g., retrieve documentation). It is more than a tautology but still vague.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
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 the many sibling tools for other modules. The description provides no context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits (e.g., read-only, pagination, error handling, authorization needs). The agent cannot infer safety or side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely brief but lacking essential information. Conciseness should not come at the cost of clarity; a single phrase is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's capabilities.
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 absence of annotations and output schema, the description should compensate. It does not explain the output format, result interpretation, or any constraints (e.g., whether it returns a list or single result, required dependencies).
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 descriptions for 'class' and 'method' are clear ('The class name to search for.' and 'The method name to search for.'). The tool description adds no additional semantic value beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate due to high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Node.js API: FFI' only identifies the module but lacks a verb or clear action. It does not specify what the tool does (e.g., retrieve documentation, list APIs, search). The sibling tools share a similar naming pattern, so the description does not distinguish behavior.
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 sibling tools differ by module name, but the description provides no context for selection, such as prerequisites or conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description gives no behavioral details. The agent cannot infer whether the tool is read-only, requires permissions, makes network calls, or has side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short but under-specified. It is not concise in a helpful way; it omits essential information that should be present.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 2 optional parameters and no output schema, the description should explain the expected return value or behavior. It fails to provide any context, making it incomplete for an agent to use effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already contains descriptions for both parameters ('class' and 'method'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Node.js API: OS' is vague. It does not specify a verb or action (e.g., 'get', 'search', 'list'), so the agent cannot determine what the tool does beyond the module name. It is slightly better than a tautology but still unclear.
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 the many sibling modules. The only differentiation is the module name in the tool title, which is insufficient for an agent to decide context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states the topic and does not disclose whether the tool lists documentation, performs a search, or requires parameters. There is no mention of side effects, permissions, or return format.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise at five words, but it lacks structure and does not front-load key information. Every sentence earns its place, but the content is insufficient for understanding the tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, the description should explain return values or behavior. It does not. The description is severely incomplete for a tool with two parameters and no annotations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 67%, and the description adds no meaning beyond the schema. It does not explain how 'class' and 'method' parameters are used or how they affect results. The description is redundant with the schema but fails to provide additional semantic value.
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?
Description states 'Node.js API: TLS (SSL)', which indicates the domain but lacks a verb. The name 'get_api_for-tls_ssl' implies retrieval, but the description does not explicitly state the action. It is somewhat clear but not specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools without context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools have similar names for different modules, but the description does not provide any context or exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, and the description is minimal. It does not disclose what the tool returns (e.g., methods, classes), any side effects, or required permissions, leaving the agent with insufficient behavioral understanding.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely brief (only 4 words), but this is underspecification rather than conciseness. It lacks crucial details about usage and output, making it insufficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of output schema and annotations, and the presence of many sibling tools, the description is far from complete. It does not explain what the tool returns or how to interpret results.
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 67% schema description coverage, the description adds no additional meaning to the parameters. The schema already describes 'class' and 'method', but the 'required' parameter (an array) is unclear and not explained further.
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 'Node.js API: Path' clearly indicates the tool retrieves API information for the Node.js path module. However, it does not distinguish it from sibling tools like 'get_api_for-fs' which also target specific modules.
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 the many sibling tools that target other Node.js modules. The description lacks any context about alternatives or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, and the description provides no behavioral information such as side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or what the tool does beyond identifying its topic. 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.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise at one short phrase, but it sacrifices necessary detail. It is not well-structured for an AI agent to understand the tool's purpose and usage.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (optional parameters, no output schema), the description should at least state what result is returned. Currently it only labels the topic area, leaving the agent guessing about output and use cases.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds no meaning beyond the input schema. While the schema explains 'class' and 'method' parameters, the description fails to clarify their roles or how they interact. The lack of parameter context is especially problematic with 67% schema coverage.
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 'Node.js API: Worker threads' conveys the resource type but lacks a specific action verb. The tool name includes 'get_api', which implies retrieval, but the description does not reinforce this or distinguish it from siblings that follow the same pattern.
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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus other 'get_api_for-*' tools or the sibling 'search-nodejs-modules-api-documentation', leaving the agent without decision context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; the description fails to disclose whether the tool is read-only, what it returns, or any behavioral traits. Only a minimal resource label is given.
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 extremely short (one phrase), which is concise but lacks structure and substance.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With many sibling tools and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return format or behavior, leaving the agent with insufficient context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already describes the 'class' and 'method' parameters moderately well (67% coverage). The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Node.js API: Async hooks' identifies the resource but does not specify the action (e.g., retrieve, search, list). It is vague and does not distinguish from sibling tools beyond naming the module.
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 siblings. There is no mention of alternatives like the search tool or other module-specific tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; the description does not disclose any behavioral traits (e.g., does it require parameters? what happens if no parameters? any side effects?). The description is too minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is too short to convey necessary information. It lacks structure and important details, making it ineffective despite being concise.
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 simple documentation lookup tool, the description fails to explain what the tool returns, how to use parameters effectively, or how it relates to sibling tools. Without output schema, return value is unclear.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds no meaning beyond the input schema. Parameters 'class' and 'method' are documented in the schema, but the description doesn't explain how they filter or combine. With 67% schema coverage, the description does not compensate.
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 'Node.js API: Net' indicates the resource (Net module) and implies a retrieval action, but it doesn't explicitly state what the tool does (e.g., retrieve documentation, list methods). It's somewhat vague and doesn't differentiate from siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like 'search-nodejs-modules-api-documentation'. No conditions or exclusions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention any side effects, return type, or access requirements, providing no transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise at five words, with no redundancy. However, the brevity sacrifices clarity, but for structure alone it is efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of output schema and annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not specify return format, how to use parameters, or any expected behavior, failing to equip the agent for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already describes the two parameters ('class' and 'method') with clear descriptions. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.
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 'Node.js API: String decoder' specifies the module but does not explicitly state what the tool does (e.g., retrieve API documentation). It distinguishes from siblings by naming the module, but the verb is implied by the tool name.
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 other get_api_for-* tools. The description lacks any context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears full burden but only gives the topic. No behavioral traits (e.g., read-only, side effects, return format) are disclosed.
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 single sentence is concise but lacks necessary details. It is front-loaded but too sparse to be minimally adequate.
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, no output schema, many siblings), the description is incomplete. It omits action, usage, and parameter semantics.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description does not mention parameters or add meaning beyond the schema. Schema coverage is 67%, but no parameter context is provided.
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 'Node.js API: Performance measurement APIs' identifies the topic but fails to specify the action (e.g., get, search). It is vague and does not clearly state what the tool does with the APIs.
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 vs its many siblings. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or alternatives.
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, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, side effects, or authorization needs. The minimal description leaves critical safety assumptions unstated.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short (one phrase) but fails to provide enough information to effectively use the tool. It is under-specified rather than appropriately concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns (e.g., documentation text or links). It does not, and it does not differentiate from numerous sibling tools with similar descriptions.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already describes both parameters with 'The class name to search for' and 'The method name to search for'. The description adds no additional semantic value beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 'Node.js API: Web Crypto API', which identifies the resource but does not specify the action (e.g., 'retrieves documentation'). The verb is implied by the tool name, but the description alone is vague.
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 sibling tools like get_api_for-crypto or search-nodejs-modules-api-documentation. The description lacks any usage context or exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavior such as whether the tool fetches data from a source, is read-only, or requires network access. The agent lacks essential information about side effects or prerequisites.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short and not verbose, but it is also not a complete sentence, bordering on a fragment. It earns its place minimally but fails to convey necessary information efficiently.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has no output schema, no annotations, and the description does not explain what the tool returns or how to interpret results. For a retrieval tool, this is incomplete and may lead to incorrect invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already describes both parameters ('class' and 'method') with clear semantics. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, and coverage is high, so baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 'Node.js API: HTTP' indicates the topic but does not explicitly state the action (e.g., retrieve, list). The verb is implied by the tool name, but the description adds little clarity. Among siblings, it differentiates by module but not by 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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search-nodejs-modules-api-documentation' or other module-specific tools. The description lacks any context for usage decisions.
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, and the description fails to disclose any behavioral traits such as whether the tool is read-only, what effects it has, or any prerequisites or constraints. The description carries the full burden but adds no 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.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (one phrase), but it is also underspecified. While it avoids verbosity, it sacrifices clarity and completeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and no annotations, the description is too minimal. It does not explain what the tool returns or how to interpret results, making it insufficient for effective tool selection and invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already documents both 'class' and 'method' parameters with descriptions (67% coverage as per context). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, earning the baseline score of 3.
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 'Node.js API: TTY' indicates the subject matter but does not specify the action (e.g., get, search). The tool name 'get_api_for-tty' clarifies the purpose slightly, but the description alone is vague and does not distinguish it from sibling tools for other modules.
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. While sibling tools cover other Node.js modules, no usage context or exclusions are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the resource name, with no mention of read-only, destructive effects, authentication, or response behavior.
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 concise (3 words) but lacks structure and important details. It is not verbose, but it omits critical information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (searching V8 API), the description is incomplete. There is no mention of output or return values, and it assumes prior knowledge of the tool's behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema describes both parameters ('class' and 'method') with clear descriptions. Schema description coverage is effectively 100% based on the schema provided, so the description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema.
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 'Node.js API: V8' indicates the resource category (V8) but lacks a verb and does not clearly state the action (e.g., search, retrieve). It distinguishes from siblings by naming a specific module, but the purpose is vague.
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. Sibling tools are differentiated by module name, but there is no usage context or exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the topic, not whether the tool is read-only, what it returns, or if parameters are required. The schema shows all parameters optional, but this is not clarified in the description.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short (one sentence), which is concise but lacks necessary detail. It does not waste words, but it also does not provide sufficient information for effective tool selection.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, no annotations, and minimal description, the tool is incomplete. It does not explain how to use the parameters or what the return value will be, leaving the agent underinformed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 67%, with class and method having generic descriptions ('The class name to search for' and 'The method name to search for'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. The third parameter 'required' is unusual and not explained.
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 'Node.js API: WebAssembly System Interface (WASI)', which combines with the name to indicate the tool retrieves API documentation for the WASI module. However, it does not explicitly state the action (e.g., 'get API documentation'), leaving the purpose somewhat vague compared to more explicit siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus other get_api_for-* siblings or the search tool. The description provides no context for appropriate usage or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears full burden but only provides the module name. It does not disclose what the tool does (e.g., returns documentation, searches), side effects, or error handling.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short (one line), but it could be improved by front-loading the tool's action. It is concise but misses opportunities 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 no output schema and no annotations, the description should provide more context about what the tool returns or how to use it. It is incomplete for a tool with undocumented behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds no meaning beyond the input schema's parameter descriptions. The unexpected 'required' property is confusing and lacks description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Node.js API: UDP/datagram sockets' clearly identifies the tool's focus on a specific API module, distinguishing it from siblings. However, it does not explicitly state the function (e.g., 'search' or 'retrieve'), relying on the tool name's 'get_api_for' prefix.
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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as required parameters, error handling, or return behavior. The description is too minimal to understand 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence, which is concise and front-loaded with the key topic. However, it could include more useful information without being verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity of the tool (2 parameters, no output schema), the description is too sparse. It lacks completeness in explaining what the tool returns or how to use it effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides descriptions for both parameters ('class' and 'method'), achieving 100% coverage for those. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the module name, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 states 'Node.js API: Asynchronous context tracking', clearly indicating the tool retrieves API documentation for that specific Node.js module. It is specific but does not differentiate from similar siblings like 'get_api_for-async_hooks' which is a different module.
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 lacks any context about use cases or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits like read-only nature, authentication requirements, or rate limits. The tool name implies a read operation but is not explicit.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, consisting of a single short phrase. It is front-loaded but may be too sparse for optimal clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of output schema and minimal description, the agent has insufficient information about tool behavior and return values. Completeness is low for a three-parameter tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds no information about parameters beyond the schema, which already describes 'class' and 'method' generically. With 67% schema coverage, the description should compensate but does not.
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 retrieves API info for the Node.js query string module, distinguishing it from siblings for other modules. However, it does not specify what exactly is returned (e.g., documentation, methods).
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 such as the sibling search tool. The agent must infer from the module name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations, but the simple read-only nature of the tool (listing modules) is evident. The description could add context about scope or format, but the core behavior is transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences with bold emphasis, no wasted words. Front-loaded with priority and action directive.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers the tool's purpose and usage. It integrates well with the sibling tools context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. Baseline of 4 is appropriate; no additional parameter info needed.
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 lists all Node.js modules and their methods, and distinguishes it from sibling 'get_api_for-*' tools by positioning it as a lookup/directory tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly says 'ALWAYS consult this tool first to look-up the correct module and then use the specific module tool', providing clear usage guidance and contrasting with siblings.
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:

[![mcp-server-nodejs-api-docs MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/snyk-labs/mcp-server-nodejs-api-docs/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/snyk-labs/mcp-server-nodejs-api-docs)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp-server-nodejs-api-docs MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/snyk-labs/mcp-server-nodejs-api-docs/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/snyk-labs/mcp-server-nodejs-api-docs)

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/snyk-labs/mcp-server-nodejs-api-docs'

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