meloqa-mcp

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct resource and action, with clear grouping by tags. No overlapping or ambiguous tool semantics.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent resource_action naming pattern using snake_case. Verbs are uniform (list, create, delete, get, update) with few deviations like 'unarchive' and 'batch_create'.
Tool Count2/5
With 83 tools, the count far exceeds the typical well-scoped range (3-15). While the domain is complex, the sheer number may overwhelm agents.
Completeness4/5
The tool set covers CRUD and lifecycle operations for all main entities (bugs, cycles, executions, test cases, projects, etc.). Minor gaps like missing direct test case status management are present but not critical.
Average 3.2/5 across 83 of 83 tools scored. Lowest: 1.1/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 5 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

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

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

How is the quality score calculated?

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

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

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

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

Tool Scores

Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. However, the description says nothing about whether updates are partial or full, what happens if the bug does not exist, or any side effects. This is a critical gap.
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 this is not conciseness; it is under-specification. It lacks any useful structure or information, resulting in wasted space.
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 has 10 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is woefully incomplete. It provides no context for the agent to understand the tool's capabilities or limitations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description does not mention any parameters. With only 20% schema description coverage, the description fails to compensate. It adds no meaning beyond what the schema already provides.
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?
The description 'Update bug' is a tautology of the tool name 'bugs_update'. It provides no additional clarification on what specific updates are performed or how it differs from siblings like bugs_create or bugs_get. The tag 'Bugs' adds no value.
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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or scenarios where another tool would be preferred.
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, there is no disclosure of behavioral traits such as side effects, permissions required, or what happens upon successful creation. The description offers no value beyond a basic action verb.
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 fails to be informative. It is under-specified rather than concise, providing no useful details 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?
Given the lack of output schema, annotations, and parameter descriptions, the tool definition is critically incomplete. The agent has no way to understand the tool's inputs, outputs, or behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any of the four parameters (name, order, parentId, projectId). The agent receives no guidance on how to fill these fields or their constraints.
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?
The description 'Create cycle folder' is a tautology of the tool name, providing no additional information about what a cycle folder is or how it differs from sibling tools like bug_folders_create or test_case_folders_create. It fails to specify the resource type or context.
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 guidelines are given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or comparison with sibling tools such as cycle_folders_update or cycles_create.
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 present and description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as side effects, required permissions, or whether the operation is destructive.
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. 'Create cycle' is insufficient guidance; conciseness sacrifices necessary detail.
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?
For a create tool with 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is completely inadequate. The agent cannot determine expected inputs or behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%; description provides no explanation for any of the 9 parameters, leaving the agent with no additional semantic context beyond the schema.
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 'Create cycle' is a tautology of the tool name 'cycles_create'. It adds no additional meaning or differentiation from sibling tools.
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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like cycles_update or cycles_delete. No context about prerequisites or exclusions.
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 does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond the obvious update operation. No information about side effects, authorization needs, or constraints.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short (two words plus a tag), but it is under-specified rather than concise. It lacks necessary details that would make it useful.
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 high parameter count (9), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what fields can be updated, constraints, or return behavior.
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?
With only 11% schema description coverage, the description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema. The description does not elaborate on any of the 9 parameters, nor does it compensate for the lack of schema 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 'Update cycle' clearly identifies the verb and resource, but it is too brief and does not differentiate from sibling tools like cycles_create, cycles_delete, etc. No additional context is provided to distinguish its scope.
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. No prerequisites, exclusions, or 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?
With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Create bug folder' with no mention of side effects, idempotency, return value, or any requirements. This is insufficient for an action that presumably creates a resource.
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 very short but includes an irrelevant tag ('Tag: Bug Folders') that adds no value. It fails to provide essential information, 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 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It omits critical details about parameter semantics, behavior, and usage context, making it inadequate for an AI agent to use correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It does not describe any of the 4 parameters (name, order, parentId, projectId), leaving the agent to guess their meaning and constraints.
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 'Create bug folder', which is a specific verb+resource. However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like bug_folders_update or other folder creation tools, and lacks context on what a 'bug folder' is in this domain.
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, when not to use it, or prerequisites like requiring a project ID. The agent has no context for appropriate invocation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. Only 'Create tag' is provided, implying a non-destructive write, but no details on auth, rate limits, side effects, or response format. The description adds minimal value 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 (two words plus a redundant line), but it is under-specified rather than concise. It fails to provide necessary context and wastes space on repetition ('Tag: Tags').
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 has three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is woefully incomplete. It does not explain purpose of parameters, expected return, or any constraints.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description does not explain any of the three parameters (name, color, projectId). The description adds no meaning beyond the schema's type and required indicators.
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 'Create tag', clearly indicating the verb (create) and resource (tag). However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like tags_update or tags_list, and provides no context on what a tag is in this system.
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 (e.g., tags_update, other creation tools). There is no mention of 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?
With no annotations, the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as side effects, reversibility, or permission requirements. The agent has no insight into what happens upon deletion (e.g., cascade effects).
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 but includes an irrelevant tag line ('Tag: Test Cases'). It is concise but lacks structured information such as prerequisites or return value hints.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple delete operation with one parameter, the description is minimally adequate. However, the lack of output schema or behavioral notes leaves gaps in completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema covers 100% of the single parameter (id), so the description adds no extra meaning beyond the field definition. Baseline score of 3 applies as the description does not compensate for 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 'Delete test case' essentially restates the tool name, providing no additional specificity. It is a tautology and fails to distinguish the tool from related actions like archiving or deactivating test cases.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., test_cases_unarchive). No prerequisites or context for safe usage 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 exist, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Create bug', which implies mutation, but it fails to describe side effects, required permissions, or implications like overwriting existing data. This is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's impact.
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 valuable information. 'Tag: Bugs' is unclear and adds no value. A concise description should pack essential details, not omit them. Thus, 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.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 10 parameters, no output schema, and minimal schema descriptions, the tool is complex. The description provides no context on return values, required fields, or behavior, leaving the agent with a dangerous gap in understanding how to use the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 10%, and the description adds no parameter information whatsoever. The agent receives no help understanding the meaning or format of the 10 parameters, including the 3 required ones. This is critically deficient.
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 'Create bug' clearly states the action and resource with a specific verb and object. However, it does not differentiate this tool from sibling tools like bugs_delete or bugs_update, so a 4 is appropriate.
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, what prerequisites are needed, or how it contrasts with alternatives like bugs_update or bugs_list. This leaves the agent without contextual direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. The description only states 'Update', implying mutation, but does not disclose side effects, permissions required, or whether changes are reversible. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (one line plus a tag), but this comes at the cost of missing essential information. It is not verbose, but it is under-specified, which reduces its utility.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of output schema, low parameter coverage, and lack of usage context, the description fails to provide a complete picture. It does not mention return values, constraints (e.g., valid values for order), or relationships with other entities like cycles.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 25% (only 'id' has a description). The description adds no additional meaning to parameters like 'name', 'order', or 'parentId'. It does not compensate for the low schema coverage, leaving the agent without guidance on parameter semantics.
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 'Update cycle folder', which is a specific verb+resource pairing. It distinguishes from siblings like create, delete, get, list by indicating a modification operation. However, it could be more specific about which fields are updatable.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., cycle_folders_create or cycle_folders_get). No prerequisites or conditions for use are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'List tags', with no details on side effects, required permissions, pagination, or return format. This is insufficient for a non-map 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?
Extremely concise but under-specified. Two short sentences with repetition, providing minimal information. While it is short, it sacrifices clarity and usefulness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one required param, no output schema), the description should at least hint at the return type or behavior. It is incomplete, lacking any information beyond the name.
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 100% with one parameter (projectId) already described in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline is 3, so no extra credit.
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 'List tags', which is a specific verb and resource, but it is very minimal and does not distinguish this tool from sibling tools like tags_get or tags_list (itself). The redundancy 'Tag: Tags' adds no value. Purpose is clear but lacks differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of prerequisites, filtering behavior, or context. The description simply states what it does without any usage advice.
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 provides no behavioral details such as read-only nature, pagination, authorization needs, or result format. The description is essentially the tool name only.
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 fails to include essential information about behavior or usage. It is under-specified rather than concise, with a tag line that adds no value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a list operation without output schema or annotations, the description should cover basic aspects like pagination or ordering. It does not, 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 provides 100% coverage with clear descriptions for both parameters (projectId and parentId). The description adds no additional meaning beyond these, so the score is the baseline of 3.
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 'List test case folders' which is a verb+resource combination, but it does not differentiate from sibling tools like test_case_folders_get beyond the standard 'list' vs 'get' convention.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as test_case_folders_get or other list tools. No context for usage is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses one important behavior (state field is system-managed and silently ignored) but fails to describe other behaviors such as what happens upon creation, required parameters, idempotency, or error handling. This is insufficient for a tool with 9 parameters.
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 (two sentences) and front-loaded, but it is too brief to be effective. The 'Tag: Executions' line adds little value. The conciseness comes at the cost of missing critical information.
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 has 9 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and a complex domain (executions), the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the purpose of an execution, the meaning of required parameters like testsCycleId or testCaseId, or the return value. An agent would struggle to use this tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 9 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the tool description provides no explanations for any parameter. The only parameter mentioned (state) is not even in the schema. The agent receives no guidance on what each parameter means or how to use them.
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 'Create execution' which is a verb+resource but lacks specificity on what an execution is and how it differs from sibling tools like executions_run or executions_finish. The additional context about state and alternative endpoints helps but does not fully clarify the tool's purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly tells when to use this tool (for creation) and directs to alternative endpoints for driving transitions (run, pause, finish). It also warns that the state field is ignored, which is a useful usage guideline. However, it does not mention 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.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description should disclose behavior but only states 'Update tag', missing details on mutation effects, permissions, or side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short (4 words), which is concise but lacks structure beyond the action; the redundant 'Tag: Tags' adds no value.
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 has 3 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is severely incomplete, omitting what a tag is, update semantics, and response format.
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 only 33% (only 'id' has a description), and the description adds no information about parameters 'name' or 'color', failing to compensate for the coverage gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Update tag' which is a clear verb+resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like tags_create, tags_delete, and tags_list.
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, nor any prerequisites or context for invocation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; description gives zero behavioral traits beyond 'create'. No mention of side effects, permissions, idempotency, or schema-derived details like PATCH vs POST behavior for steps/customFields. The description adds no value 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.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short (two lines) but includes an irrelevant 'Tag: Test Cases' that adds no value. It is concise in length but not effectively so, as it omits essential information.
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 complexity of 17 parameters, many with type-dependent behavior (steps, customFields), the description is wholly inadequate. It does not summarize the tool's capabilities, required fields, or usage context, making it nearly useless for an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is low (29%), and the description does not explain any parameters or their semantics. It relies entirely on the schema, which itself has gaps. 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?
Description clearly states 'Create test case', which is a specific verb+resource. However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like 'test_cases_update' or other create tools, relying on the tool name for differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites or context provided. The description lacks any information about when to choose create over update or other actions.
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 present, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It only states 'Update', implying mutation, but fails to disclose effects, permissions, idempotency, or side effects. The tag 'Bug Folders' is a category, not behavioral.
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, consisting of only two lines. While it is front-loaded, it sacrifices essential details, making it too sparse to be fully useful.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and low schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It does not explain if the update is partial or full replacement, any constraints on the fields, or what the response contains.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is only 25% (only 'id' has a description). The tool description does not add any meaning for the parameters 'name', 'order', or 'parentId', such as their purpose or constraints, leaving agents without adequate guidance.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Update' and resource 'bug folder', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like create, delete, get, and list. However, it doesn't specify which fields can be updated, though the input schema provides that information.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, when an update is appropriate, or any exclusions.
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 behavioral traits such as that deletion is permanent, any authorization requirements, or side effects like affected associations. The agent has no information about the tool's behavior beyond the action name.
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 ('Delete bug\n\nTag: Bugs'), but the 'Tag: Bugs' line seems redundant. It could be more structured, e.g., including a single clear sentence.
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 delete tool with no output schema, the description should clarify what happens after deletion (e.g., success response, irreversibility). It does not provide enough context for an agent to use it confidently.
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 covers the single parameter 'id' with a description 'Bug ID', so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides.
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 'Delete bug', which is a specific verb and resource. However, it lacks additional context to distinguish from other bug-related tools, though 'Delete' is unambiguous among 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 alternatives (e.g., bugs_update for changing status instead of deleting). No mention of prerequisites or consequences.
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 must disclose behavioral traits, but it only says 'List executions'. It does not mention that the operation is read-only, whether pagination is used, or any other behavioral details.
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, but the 'Tag: Executions' line adds no value. It is appropriately concise but could be restructured to front-load the core purpose without the tag line.
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 three optional parameters and no output schema, the description should explain how filters combine, whether results are paginated, and what the response format includes. It is missing these important details.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so each parameter already has a clear description. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline for this dimension.
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 'List executions' clearly states the verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like executions_attachments_list. However, it does not mention that the tool supports optional filtering by project, test case, or test cycle.
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 instead of alternatives like cycles_list or test_cases_list. The description offers no context about its appropriate use cases.
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, sorting). The tag 'Tag: Cycle Folders' adds 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short (two sentences) and avoids fluff. However, it lacks substance that could be included without significant bloat.
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 list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what is returned and any side effects. It provides none of this, 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?
Input schema covers both parameters with descriptions. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, 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 'List cycle folders' clearly states the action and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling list tools like bug_folders_list or cycles_list, missing an opportunity to specify scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., cycle_folders_get, cycles_list). The agent must infer context from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 nature, permission requirements, pagination, or response format. The agent has no insight into side effects or constraints.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise, consisting of two short sentences. Every sentence is relevant, but it could be structured with more front-loaded 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 low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is barely adequate. It fails to provide context on return format, pagination, or any behavioral nuances that would help an agent use the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with the 'id' parameter described as 'Organization ID'. The description adds no extra 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.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'List members of an organization' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like organizations_list (list organizations) and organizations_get (get single organization), though the differentiation is implicit.
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 projects_members_list or organizations_list. There is no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description only mentions the archived read-only constraint. It does not disclose other behaviors like partial updates, error handling, permission requirements, or side effects. This is insufficient for a mutation tool with 17 parameters.
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 short and to the point, but the 'Tag: Test Cases' line is unnecessary and adds noise. While concise, it sacrifices completeness for brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 17 parameters, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description only addresses one edge case (archived test cases). It fails to provide essential context for invocation, such as typical use cases, return values, or error scenarios.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 24%, yet the description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the archived constraint. It does not clarify any parameters or their relationships, leaving the agent with minimal guidance.
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 'Update test case' clearly specifies the action and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like test_cases_create, test_cases_delete, or test_cases_unarchive, though the name is self-explanatory.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description states that archived test cases cannot be updated, providing a when-not-to-use condition. But it lacks guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., create for new cases, unarchive for reactivating).
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 all behavioral traits. It only states 'delete' without mentioning side effects (e.g., cascading deletion of bugs, irreversibility, required permissions). This is insufficient for a destructive tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short, with a single line and a tag. It is concise but sacrifices crucial context. The structure is minimal, with no front-loading of important information. A balanced score reflects that it is not verbose but could be better organized.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no output schema), the description should still cover outcomes like whether deletion is permanent or soft, and if there are any dependencies (e.g., bugs in the folder). It lacks this essential context, making it incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with one parameter 'id' described as 'Bug Folder ID'. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, which is adequate but not beneficial. Baseline score of 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 clearly states the action 'Delete bug folder' with a specific resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like bug_folders_create, bug_folders_update, etc., by the verb 'delete'. However, it is minimal and lacks a title, leaving room for slight ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., archiving or other deletion methods). There is no mention of prerequisites or contextual usage, leaving the agent without clear 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention side effects (e.g., cascading deletions), permission requirements, or whether deletion is reversible. The description adds no transparency beyond the basic action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short (one sentence plus a tag line), which is concise but lacks necessary detail. The tag 'Tag: Cycle Folders' adds no utility. While not verbose, the brevity comes at the cost of 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?
For a delete operation with a single parameter and no output schema, the description does not explain return values, error conditions, or the behavior when the folder contains items. It is incomplete for an agent to understand the tool's full effect.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% coverage, describing the required 'id' parameter as 'Cycle Folder ID.' The description does not add any additional meaning or context for the parameter, so it neither improves nor detracts from the schema's clarity.
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 'Delete cycle folder,' which specifies the verb (delete) and the resource (cycle folder). It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like cycle_folders_create, cycle_folders_get, and cycle_folders_list.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool, such as prerequisites, conditions for deletion, or alternatives. It only repeats the action without context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must carry behavioral info. It only says 'delete' but doesn't disclose consequences, permissions, or whether it's a soft delete. Minimal transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Very short description, but 'Tag: Cycles' seems extraneous. Could be more focused. Not well-structured, but not overly 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?
With simple input and no output schema, description is too sparse. Missing details like what happens on success/failure, or any side effects. Insufficient for complete understanding.
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 has 100% coverage with id parameter described as 'Cycle ID'. Description adds no additional semantics beyond 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.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states 'Delete cycle', which is a specific verb and resource. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like cycles_list or cycles_get, but the action is straightforward.
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, no prerequisites or conditions for deletion. The description lacks context for appropriate usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as irreversibility, permissions required, or side effects. Delete operations should explicitly note that the action is destructive.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Very short description, but it is front-loaded with the action. However, the tag line offers no value. It is concise but under-specified for a delete operation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that this is a delete operation with no output schema and no annotations, the description should provide more context about success responses, idempotency, or impact on related entities. It is incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the parameter 'id' is already documented. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, meeting baseline expectation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states 'Delete execution', which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like executions_create or executions_get. However, it lacks any additional context about what an execution is.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no conditions or prerequisites mentioned. Siblings include other execution actions but no comparative information.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description only indicates a delete operation without any behavioral details (e.g., whether deletion is permanent, cascade effects, auth requirements). Since no annotations are provided, the description inadequately informs the agent of consequences.
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 short but includes redundant text 'Tag: Tags' that adds no value. It could be more concise by simply stating 'Delete tag'. Some filler is 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?
For a destructive tool without output schema, the description fails to explain return values or success/error behavior. It lacks sufficient context for an agent to fully understand the operation's effects.
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 100% with a single parameter 'id' described as 'Tag ID'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, warranting a baseline score of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description states "Delete tag", which is a clear verb+resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like tags_create and tags_list. However, it is minimal and does not provide additional context beyond 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 on when to use this tool vs. other tag operations such as tags_create or tags_update. No alternatives or conditions for use are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility. It only states a simple retrieval operation, omitting behavioral traits like idempotence, error handling (e.g., what happens if ID not found), or authentication requirements. This is insufficient for a safe read operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short but includes an extraneous line 'Tag: Test Cases' that does not clarify functionality. While the core sentence is concise, the unnecessary tag reduces efficiency and clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description lacks essential context: it does not indicate what the response contains (e.g., full test case object), nor does it address error scenarios. Given no output schema, the description should provide more completeness about expected return or 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 already covers 100% of parameters with a description for 'id'. The tool description reinforces that the ID is used to fetch the test case but adds no new semantic meaning beyond the schema. Baseline of 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 clearly states the action ('Get') and the resource ('test case by ID'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like test_cases_list (returns multiple) or test_cases_create (creates). However, it could be more explicit about the scope or what fields are returned.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., test_cases_list, test_cases_archived_list). There are no usage conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Does not disclose pagination, permissions, ordering, or result structure. Only states the action, not how it 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?
Very concise at two sentences. No wasted words. However, it is too minimal, lacking important details. Front-loads purpose but misses depth.
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?
Without output schema or annotations, description fails to convey what the tool returns, pagination behavior, or any side effects. Incomplete for a list operation.
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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions. Adequate but not improved.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description states 'List bug folders' which is a clear verb+resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like bug_folders_create. However, it is very brief and lacks any additional 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 vs alternatives. Does not mention filtering, prerequisites, or when not to use. Minimal direction for an AI agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without revealing traits like error handling (e.g., if ID not found), authentication requirements, or return value structure.
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 with no wasted words, front-loading the core purpose. However, it could be more informative without sacrificing brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the action and parameter but lacks details about return values or behavioral expectations, leaving gaps for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the parameter 'id' is already documented. The description adds no extra semantics beyond what the schema provides, maintaining a baseline score.
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 'Get execution by ID' clearly specifies the action (get) and resource (execution) with the retrieval identifier. It distinguishes from sibling tools like executions_list or executions_create, though it does not explicitly differentiate them.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as executions_list for multiple executions or executions_get if the ID is known. There is no mention of prerequisites or context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only says 'List organizations'. It fails to disclose return format, authentication needs, or any side effects. For a read operation, this is borderline acceptable but lacks detail expected for transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short (two lines) but wastes space on a 'Tag: Organizations' line that adds no actionable information. It is concise but underspecified, missing opportunities to provide useful context without major expansion.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given zero parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate for a list-all tool. However, it does not explain what 'organizations' means in this context or what the response contains, leaving some ambiguity.
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?
There are no parameters, and the input schema is empty with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, which is sufficient given the simplicity. Baseline of 3 applies per the rule.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('organizations'), making the core purpose unambiguous. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like organizations_get and organizations_update by name alone.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., organizations_get for a single organization). There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations available, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only provides a detail about the employeeQuantity field but fails to state that the tool modifies an existing organization, the need for appropriate permissions, or any side effects (e.g., impact on members).
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 short and front-loaded with the core purpose. It avoids unnecessary words and includes a specific note on one parameter. However, it could be slightly longer to cover more critical details without becoming 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 tool has 9 parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It only elaborates on one parameter (employeeQuantity) and does not explain the required id field, ownership transfer, or the effect of updating other fields. The lack of behavioral and usage guidance reduces overall completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema coverage is only 22%, but the description adds meaningful semantics for the employeeQuantity parameter by listing allowed values and noting null clears it. However, it provides no additional context for the other 8 parameters (e.g., ownerId transfer, optional fields).
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 'Update organization' as the verb-resource pair, making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling entities by its entity name, but does not differentiate from other 'update' tools (e.g., projects_update). The tag 'Organizations' reinforces 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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like organizations_get or organizations_list. There is no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It only provides validation rules (max lengths, project picture requirement). It does not state what the tool returns, whether it is idempotent, or what errors may occur. Behavioral transparency is minimal.
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 short and to the point, with validation rules listed in a clear format. It is front-loaded with the purpose. However, it lacks structure and could benefit from separating purpose, usage, and behavioral notes.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the overall effect of creating a project, where to find required IDs, or how to interpret the result. The tool's complexity is high relative to the description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is low (20%), but the description adds the endpoint for listing project pictures, which supplements the schema. However, it does not explain other parameters like organizationId or testCaseTypeId. The validation rules duplicate schema constraints, adding some but limited value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Create project', which is a clear verb+resource pair. However, it does not differentiate this tool from other create tools among siblings, such as cycles_create or test_cases_create. The purpose is clear but generic.
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 alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, such as needing an organization or where to obtain required IDs like organizationId or testCaseTypeId. The description only lists validation rules.
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, so description carries full burden. It does not disclose any behavioral aspects such as return structure, error handling, authentication needs, or side effects. Simply states 'Get project by ID'.
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?
Extremely concise, only two short lines. 'Tag: Projects' is extraneous but not harmful. Every functional word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple get operation with one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but lacks detail on return value or behavior. Would benefit from mentioning that it returns the full project object.
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 100% with parameter 'id' already described as 'Project ID' with uuid format. Description adds no additional meaning beyond schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states 'Get project by ID', specifying the verb 'Get', resource 'project', and identifier 'by ID'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like projects_list (list all) and projects_create.
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 projects_list or projects_get for other IDs. No context about exclusion criteria 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.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals one important behavior: creating a folder beyond the third sub-level results in a 400 error. However, it does not disclose other behaviors such as whether creation is idempotent, what happens on success (response details), or how the 'order' parameter affects folder positioning.
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 with two substantive sentences. However, it includes a 'Tag: Test Case Folders' line that does not add functional value. The structure front-loads the purpose, which is good, but the tag breaks the flow and wastes characters. Overall, it is concise but not optimally structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It covers only the hierarchy limitation but fails to explain the return value (e.g., created folder object), parameter semantics, required permissions, or common failure scenarios. An agent would likely need to guess about expected inputs and outcomes.
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 has 0% description coverage, meaning no parameter descriptions are provided. The tool description adds minimal parameter insight: it only indirectly relates to 'parentId' by mentioning hierarchy depth. The other parameters (name, order, projectId) receive no explanation of their meaning, constraints, or default values.
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 'Create test case folder' as the primary action, providing a specific verb and resource. It adds context about folder hierarchy limits, but does not explicitly differentiate this create operation from other sibling create tools (e.g., bugs_create, cycles_create). The resource name is clear enough to distinguish it within the test_case_folders group.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides a concrete usage constraint: folder hierarchy is limited to 3 sub-levels, and exceeding that returns a 400 error. This guides the agent on when to avoid using the tool. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., update for existing folders) and does not mention prerequisites like project existence.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Only says 'list all' with no details on pagination, ordering, read-only nature, or potential side effects. Minimal behavioral disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Very brief (two lines) but includes an unnecessary tag line. Could be more structured, but no redundant information. Adequately concise for a simple tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Sufficient for a simple list action with no parameters and no output schema. However, lacks hints about the response structure or cardinality, leaving some ambiguity.
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?
No parameters exist and schema coverage is 100%. Description clearly conveys the tool's purpose without needing parameter details, meeting the baseline for zero-parameter tools.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states 'List all test case statuses', indicating a specific verb and resource. However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like bug_statuses_list or cycle_statuses_list, which may cause confusion.
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. Does not specify any filtering, context, or prerequisites. Suitable for retrieving all statuses but lacks decision support.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description only states it lists test case types. It does not disclose what fields are returned (e.g., id, name), pagination behavior, or any side effects. With no annotations, the agent lacks essential behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise with two short sentences. No filler, but the 'Tag' line adds minimal value. It could be improved with slightly more detail without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what a test case type is, what the list returns, or how to interpret the results. For a list tool, this is insufficient.
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?
There are no parameters, and the schema covers 100% of the (empty) parameter set. The description adds no parameter info but the absence is acceptable; baseline 4 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'test case types', but it does not define what a test case type is, relying on the user's domain knowledge. It distinguishes from siblings only by the resource name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage 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 test_case_statuses_list or other list tools. The description does not specify context or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. The description states 'List all cycle statuses', which implies a read-only operation, but does not explicitly confirm this or disclose any other behavioral traits such as authorization requirements or performance considerations.
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 short and front-loaded, but the tag line 'Tag: Cycle Statuses' adds little value and could be considered redundant. It is appropriately concise for a simple list tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity of the tool (no parameters, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. However, it does not describe the output format or any filtering capabilities, which would be helpful for an agent invoking the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has no parameters, and schema coverage is 100% trivially. The description does not add parameter information, but none is needed. According to the guidelines, baseline for 0 parameters is 4.
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 'List all cycle statuses', which specifies the verb and resource. The tool name and description together distinguish it from sibling list tools like bug_statuses_list or test_case_statuses_list, though additional context on what cycle statuses are would help.
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 bug_statuses_list or test_case_statuses_list. The description does not provide any context about when listing cycle statuses is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only, pagination, or authentication needs. For a list operation, read-only behavior is implied but 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 concise at one meaningful sentence. The 'Tag' line is extraneous but not harmful. It is front-loaded with the purpose, making it efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, the description should hint at what the list returns (e.g., array of platform objects). It does not, leaving the agent to infer behavior. For a simple tool, this is a gap.
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 100%, and the parameter 'projectId' has a description. The tool description adds no new meaning beyond the schema, which already explains the parameter adequately. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists platforms scoped to a project, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like projects_list or bug_environments_list by focusing on platforms.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other list tools for different entities). The description lacks any context about prerequisites, exclusions, or typical use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description indicates a read operation but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as pagination, ordering, or authentication requirements. Since no annotations are provided, the burden is on the description, which is minimal but adequate for a simple list operation.
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 short and front-loaded, with the key action and scope in the first line. The 'Tag: Bug Environments' line adds minor redundancy but does not significantly harm conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list tool with one parameter, the description is adequate but lacks additional context about the output format or the nature of environments. It is complete enough to use but would benefit from more detail.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already fully describes the single parameter (projectId) with high coverage. The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 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 clearly states the action (List) and resource (environments) with a project scope. It is sufficiently clear to distinguish from sibling list tools for different entities, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself.
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 when to use bug_environments_list vs other list tools like bug_folders_list or bugs_list. There is no mention of exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. Description does not disclose behavioral traits beyond the basic read operation. No mention of response format, limitations, or prerequisites.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Very concise, two sentences. Front-loaded with the purpose. The tag line is somewhat redundant but not harmful. Could be slightly more informative without breaking conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Adequate for a simple get operation with one parameter and no output schema. However, does not explain what a bug folder is or what the response returns, leaving some gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with one parameter described in the schema. Description adds no new meaning beyond 'Bug Folder ID' from the schema. Baseline 3 due to high coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description states 'Get bug folder by ID' with a clear verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like bug_folders_list, bug_folders_create, etc. The tag 'Bug Folders' provides 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. Does not mention conditions for using this tool over list or other get operations.
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, yet the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as idempotency, authentication needs, or potential errors. For a GET operation, it likely is safe, but this is not stated explicitly.
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 short (one sentence plus a tag line) with no wasted words. It could be slightly more informative, but it is appropriately compact for a simple tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose. However, it lacks context about what a cycle folder is and what the response contains, which would be helpful for agent understanding.
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 100% with one parameter 'id' described as 'Cycle Folder ID'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.
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 states 'Get cycle folder by ID', which is a clear verb+resource pair. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'bug_folders_get' and 'test_case_folders_get' by specifying 'cycle folder'.
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 or what prerequisites exist. The tool is straightforward, but explicit usage context is absent.
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 beyond the verb 'get'. It fails to mention read-only nature, error handling, or prerequisites, leaving a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise with one sentence front-loaded with key information. The 'Tag: Cycles' line is extraneous but does not detract significantly. Efficient overall.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple get tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It lacks mention of return values, error behavior, or any additional context, leaving gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, and the schema already describes the 'id' parameter as a UUID. The description adds no semantic value beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline of 3.
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 'Get cycle by ID' states the verb (get) and resource (cycle), clearly differentiating from sibling tools like cycles_list and cycles_create. It is specific and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as cycles_list or cycles_create. The agent receives no context about appropriate usage scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Delete project' without explaining consequences (e.g., cascading deletes, irreversibility, authorization needs).
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 short (two lines) and front-loaded with the essential action. The 'Tag: Projects' adds little value but does not detract. Could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple delete operation with one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It lacks details on return values, error handling, or idempotency, but the basic purpose is clear.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with a brief description for 'id' (Project ID). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, meeting the baseline.
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 'Delete project', which is a specific verb-resource combination. It distinguishes from sibling tools like projects_create, projects_get, projects_update, etc.
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. There is no mention of prerequisites, when not to use it, or any context about deletion (e.g., prior to deletion, check project status).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states 'Get test case folder by ID' without mentioning 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short (two sentences), but the second sentence 'Tag: Test Case Folders' adds little value and could be removed. Still generally concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is minimal for a single-parameter read tool. It lacks context about response structure or any additional behavior, but given the simplicity, it is minimally adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, and the schema already provides a clear description of the ID parameter. The description adds no further meaning, so baseline score of 3 applies.
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 'Get test case folder by ID', specifying the verb and resource, and distinguishes it from sibling tools like create/delete/update/list.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as listing or creating folders. The description lacks any usage context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only says 'List bugs' and repeats the parameter requirement, omitting details about pagination, ordering, result format, or any side effects. This is minimal.
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 short but includes 'Tag: Bugs' which is extraneous for an agent. It front-loads the purpose but wastes space on a tag. Could be more concise by omitting the tag.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a list tool with no output schema and two parameters, the description covers the essential purpose and filtering requirement. However, it lacks information on pagination, sorting, or response structure, which are common needs for list endpoints.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters already documented with filter descriptions and the requirement note in the schema. The description reiterates this requirement but adds no new semantic information, 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 clearly states 'List bugs' which is a verb+resource pair, distinguishing it from sibling tools like bugs_get (single bug) or bugs_create (create). However, the 'Tag: Bugs' line adds no functional clarity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly states that at least one query parameter (projectId or folderId) is required, providing clear guidance on when the tool should be used. It does not mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the condition is clearly defined.
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 mentions 'Update' implying mutation, and gives validation rules, but does not disclose permissions, side effects, partial update behavior, or return value. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and front-loaded with the action. The tag line and bullet points are clear, though the 'Tag: Projects' line is somewhat redundant. No waste, but could be more efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema and 6 parameters (33% schema coverage), the description should provide more. It does not explain isArchived, testCaseTypeId, or partial update semantics. The tool is incomplete for an update operation.
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 only 33%. The description adds validation rules for name, description, and projectPictureUrl (the latter already covered by schema), but parameters like isArchived and testCaseTypeId lack explanation. Some value added, but gaps remain.
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 says 'Update project', which is a clear verb+resource. While there are sibling tools like projects_create and projects_delete, the update action is distinct. However, it does not explicitly 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 Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description includes validation rules for name, description, and projectPictureUrl, and references a GET endpoint for available picture IDs. This provides context on constraints, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., create).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description discloses important behavioral traits: it creates a record with uploaded=false, returns a presigned URL expiring in 300s, and indicates a required subsequent PATCH confirmation. This adds value beyond schema but does not cover error states.
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 mixes English and Portuguese, with redundancy. The Portuguese paragraph repeats the English content and adds length without essential new information for AI agents.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description explains the multi-step upload process and the return of a presigned URL, but lacks details on response structure, error handling, and authentication. For a tool with no output schema, this is adequate but not thorough.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 60%, with md5 and fileName lacking descriptions. The tool description adds no parameter-specific details, so it does not compensate for the missing schema explanations.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it creates a test case attachment and returns a presigned upload URL. However, it includes follow-up steps (PUT and PATCH) that are not part of this tool, slightly blurring the pure tool purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus similar sibling tools like bugs_attachments_create. The description does not mention alternatives or conditions for use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states the action (mark as uploaded) but omits side effects, prerequisites, idempotency, or error conditions. This is insufficient for an agent to understand the full impact.
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 short (two sentences) and front-loads the core purpose. The 'Tag: Test Case Attachments' line is redundant but not harmful. Could be slightly cleaner by removing the Portuguese duplication, but overall efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no output schema or annotations, the description lacks completeness. Missing details on when the upload is confirmed, error scenarios, and whether it can be called multiple times. The Portuguese hint about 'após o PUT no S3' adds some context but is not explicit.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, providing 'Test Case ID' and 'Attachment ID'. The description adds no further parameter details beyond the context of confirming an upload. Baseline of 3 is appropriate as the schema already documents the parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Confirm test case attachment upload' and sets 'uploaded=true'. It uses a specific verb (update/confirm) and resource (test case attachment), and the sibling tools show it is distinct from other attachments_update tools for different entities.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage after an S3 PUT ('após o PUT no S3'), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, nor provide when-not-to-use guidance. No comparison with sibling tools is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states basic listing functionality, omitting details like pagination, ordering, or filtering behavior beyond the projectId parameter.
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 with two sentences. The 'Tag: Bug Types' line is a bit unclear but does not harm conciseness. It could be slightly more informative without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate but lacks completeness regarding return format, pagination, or error handling. The tag line adds little value.
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 covers 100% of parameters, and the description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's description of projectId. The 'Tag: Bug Types' line is metadata, not parameter semantics.
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 bug types for a project, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like bug_priorities_list or bug_statuses_list.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage (listing bug types) but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions, and 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.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the destructive deletion behavior and mentions both record and S3 file removal, but lacks details on side effects, authentication, or irreversibility beyond the obvious.
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 short and front-loaded with the purpose, but the Portuguese line is redundant, making it slightly less concise. Still efficient overall.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a delete tool with two UUID parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core action and what is removed, but it could mention permanence or require confirmation. Without annotations, it is adequate but not fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% for both parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; it repeats the action but not parameter specifics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'delete' and resource 'execution attachment'. It specifies removal of both the record and the S3 file. It distinguishes from sibling tools like executions_attachments_create, list, and update.
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, when not to, or any alternatives. It simply states the action without context about prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It only states 'Remove a link' and a paid-plan restriction. No disclosure of idempotency, return value, cascading effects, or consequences of deletion.
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?
Description is very short (three lines) with no wasted words. The 'Tag: Links' line is somewhat redundant but not harmful. Front-loaded with the main action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple delete tool with one required parameter, the description covers purpose and a key constraint (paid-plan). However, it lacks information on return behavior, error cases beyond 403, and whether deletion is permanent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% with the 'id' parameter fully described (format uuid, description 'Link ID'). Description adds no additional parameter meaning, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states 'Remove a link', a specific verb+resource. Siblings like links_create, links_list, links_batch_create confirm this is the deletion tool, providing strong distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies use for deleting a single link, but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. No mention of alternatives for batch deletion (if any) or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. 'Get' implies a read-only operation, which is adequate, but it does not disclose any potential side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits. The lack of output schema also leaves return format unspecified.
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 short (two sentences), but the second line 'Tag: Organizations' is unnecessary and adds slight noise. Still, it is efficient and front-loaded with the key action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate but lacks information about the return value or any nuances. For a get operation, it could mention that it returns a single organization object.
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 covers 100% of parameters, and the description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema's 'Organization ID'. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get organization by ID' clearly states the action (get) and resource (organization by ID), making it distinct from sibling tools like organizations_list and organizations_update.
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 organizations_list. For example, it does not advise to use this for a single organization and list for all, leaving the agent to infer 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but only states 'List', implying a read operation. No details on idempotency, rate limits, or return behavior 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise with only two short lines. The 'Tag: Projects' line is potentially noise but does not detract significantly. It is front-loaded with the core purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a trivial 0-parameter tool, the description is adequate but lacks details about return values (e.g., fields returned, URLs). Without an output schema, more context would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no further parameter info, but this is acceptable given the absence of parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'List' and clearly identifies the resource 'project pictures'. No sibling tool operates on pictures, so it is well-distinguished.
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, nor any prerequisites or limitations. The description lacks context for effective selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, error responses, or rate limits. For a tool with no annotations, the description should compensate but fails to do so.
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 short, but the 'Tag: Tags' portion is somewhat redundant and not clearly structured. Still, it is concise with no unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but lacks information on return values or error handling.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% coverage, describing the 'id' parameter as 'Tag ID'. The description adds no new meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Get tag by ID', specifying the verb (get) and resource (tag). It distinguishes from sibling tools like tags_list, tags_create, etc.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for retrieving a single tag by ID, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are missing, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It discloses that the tool deletes both the record and the file in S3, which is a useful behavioral detail. However, it does not mention irreversibility, required permissions, or potential side effects. The transparency is adequate but not exhaustive.
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 short, with only two lines including a tag. It is front-loaded with the action. However, the inclusion of Portuguese text may be redundant for an English-only agent, and the 'Tag: Bug Attachments' line adds little value. Overall, it is concise but could be slightly more streamlined.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple delete operation with two parameters and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It explains the scope (record + file deletion) and implies no return value. It does not cover error conditions or prerequisites, but given the low complexity, it meets the minimum requirements.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters ('Bug ID' and 'Attachment ID'). The description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema. It implicitly conveys that these IDs identify the attachment to delete, but no extra semantics are provided.
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 'Delete bug attachment' as the action, which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create, list, and update by focusing solely on deletion. The additional Portuguese text clarifies that both the record and the S3 file are removed, reinforcing the purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, dependencies (e.g., needing the bug ID and attachment ID), or contexts where deletion is appropriate. The usage is only implied by the tool's name and description.
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 present, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the purpose and adds 'Tag: Bug Statuses,' which provides no behavioral details beyond the obvious read-only list operation.
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 short (two sentences), but the second sentence 'Tag: Bug Statuses' is somewhat redundant and could be omitted. However, it does not detract significantly.
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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal. It does not specify return format, pagination, or ordering, which a list tool should ideally mention.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, but no more is needed given the simplicity.
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 'List all bug statuses,' which is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools like bug_environments_list and bug_priorities_list.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives; usage is implied by the name and description, but no exclusions or comparisons are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided. The description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as ordering, pagination, or read-only nature. For a parameterless list, the behavior is inherently read-only, but the description lacks detail that would help an agent understand what to expect.
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 short, but includes an unnecessary 'Tag: Location Countries' line. It is front-loaded and mostly efficient, though the tag line does not add functional value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, the description should hint at what the response contains (e.g., list of country names or codes). It does not, leaving the agent to guess the return format. Completeness is lacking for a simple tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are no parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter information, but none is needed. It meets the baseline for a zero-parameter tool.
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 location countries, with a specific verb and resource. No sibling tool has a similar purpose, so it is well-differentiated.
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 there are no competing country-listing tools, the description does not provide context like 'use this to populate a location dropdown' or similar hints.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses important behavior: changing parentId moves the entire subtree and hierarchy depth is limited to 3 levels or rejected with 400. However, it does not mention idempotency, side effects, permissions, or what happens on partial updates.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with two main parts: a clear action statement and a behavioral note. The 'Tag: Test Case Folders' line is redundant and slightly detracts from conciseness, but overall it is well-structured and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and 4 parameters, the description lacks key information: return value (e.g., the updated folder), idempotency, effect of partial updates (only name or order), and any prerequisites or permissions. The subtree move behavior is detailed, but essential context for tool usage is missing.
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 low (25% with only id described). The description adds context for parentId (subtree move, depth limit) but does not explain name, order, or id beyond what schema provides. This partially compensates for the low coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Update test case folder' as the action, which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from siblings like create/delete/list by focusing on updating existing folders and adds unique behavior about moving subtrees when parentId changes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like test_case_folders_create or test_case_folders_list. It implies usage for updating a folder's name/order/parent but lacks clear guidance on when not to use it or what to use instead.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden but only states 'Get bug by ID'. No mention of idempotency, speed, or side effects, but for a simple read operation, the behavior is straightforward.
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?
Very concise, two sentences. The core information is front-loaded, though 'Tag: Bugs' adds minimal value. Could be slightly more informative without being verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple GET with one parameter and no output schema, the description minimally covers what the tool does. Lacks detail on return value or format, which may be implied but not explicit.
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 100%, and the description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema's description of the 'id' parameter. Baseline score of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'bug by ID', distinguishing it from create, update, delete, and list siblings. Identifies the specific resource using an ID parameter.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like bugs_list or bugs_create. Usage is implied by the name and description but lacks direct context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool removes both the record and the S3 file, clearly indicating destructive behavior. No side effects or permissions mentioned, but sufficient for a straightforward delete.
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 short but contains redundancy: a tag line and a Portuguese translation. The English sentence alone would suffice, making it slightly bloated. Length is appropriate but lacks structure.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (2 params, no output schema), the description is mostly complete: it specifies the action and scope. However, it lacks prerequisites or error conditions, which would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
100% schema coverage with descriptions for both parameters ('Test Case ID' and 'Attachment ID'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond these, earning the baseline score of 3.
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 'Delete test case attachment' and elaborates with 'Remove o anexo (registro + arquivo no S3)', specifying the resource and action. It distinguishes from sibling tools like bugs_attachments_delete and executions_attachments_delete by explicitly naming 'test case attachment'.
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., bugs_attachments_delete or test_cases_attachments_list). No prerequisites, when-not-to-use, or context provided. The 'Tag: Test Case Attachments' line is not usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses the state change and error conditions (400 for invalid states or parent cycle finished). However, it doesn't mention permissions, idempotency, or any side effects on other resources.
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?
Three sentences that front-load the purpose and then add constraints. Every sentence adds value and there is no unnecessary text.
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 is provided, so the description should mention what a successful response looks like. It only covers error cases, leaving the agent to guess the return on success. For a state-change tool, this is 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 single parameter 'id' is a UUID but the description never explains what it identifies (the execution). With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate by stating 'Execution ID' or similar. This is a significant gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool starts an execution by setting its state to IN_PROGRESS. It differentiates from siblings like executions_pause or executions_finish by specifying the state transition.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly states that the tool is allowed only when the current state is WAITING or PAUSED, and returns 400 otherwise. While it doesn't compare to alternatives, the constraints are clear enough for an agent to decide when 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.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, but the description adds behavioral details: conditional presence of `downloadUrl`, presigned URL, and 300s expiration. This adds value beyond a simple 'list' statement, though it omits pagination or ordering details.
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?
Short but contains redundant tag line and mixes two languages (English and Portuguese). Main purpose is clear, but could be more concise by removing the tag line or using a single language.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema, but description covers key behavioral details. Missing information on pagination, default limits, or filtering. Adequate for a simple list 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 coverage is 100% and the description does not add meaning beyond the schema's description of `id` as 'Test Case ID'. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states this tool lists test case attachments. It adds detail about items with `uploaded=true` including a presigned download URL with 300s expiration, distinguishing it from sibling tools like `bugs_attachments_list` and `executions_attachments_list`.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The context of sibling tools implies it's for test cases specifically, but there is no 'when not to use' or mention of prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It does not state whether the tool is read-only, what side effects exist, or any auth/rate limit info. 'List' implies a read operation, but it's not explicit, and the description adds no behavioral insight beyond the schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (three sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds necessary information (tag and parameter requirement), with no waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential: what it does and the mandatory filter condition. It lacks details about return format, but that is often implicit for list endpoints. Overall, adequate 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description only restates that at least one is required, adding no new meaning. With high coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists cycles and specifies the filtering parameters (projectId or folderId). It distinguishes from sibling tools like cycles_create, cycles_delete, cycles_get, etc., by explicitly describing its list-and-filter behavior.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description includes a critical usage guideline: 'At least one query parameter is required: projectId or folderId.' This tells the agent when to use the tool (when filtering by project or folder). It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the requirement is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description provides behavioral context: it mentions that items with `uploaded=true` include a pre-signed `downloadUrl` with 300s expiry. This adds value beyond the input schema. However, it does not disclose potential pagination, ordering, or read-only behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and front-loads the purpose. The tag line 'Tag: Execution Attachments' and the Portuguese sentence add minor redundancy, but overall it is efficient and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list tool with no output schema, the description covers the core functionality and key detail about download URLs. It is adequate but could be more complete by mentioning pagination, ordering, or handling of empty results.
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 100% (only one parameter, 'id', described as Execution ID). The description does not add any additional meaning or constraints to the parameter, so it performs at baseline.
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 'List execution attachments', a specific verb-resource pair. It distinguishes from sibling tools like executions_attachments_create and bugs_attachments_list, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for listing attachments of a specific execution, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use it vs alternatives, when not to use it, or any prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond listing, such as whether it returns only active levels or includes ordering. Since there are no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but the tool is straightforward. A score of 3 is appropriate as it adds no extra context about behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: two lines with front-loaded action. Every word is earned, and there is no wasted text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It could be improved by hinting at the output format (e.g., 'returns a list of priority level names and IDs') but is functional as-is.
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?
There are no parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds nothing beyond what the schema provides (an empty object), but no additional parameter meaning is 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 action ('List all bug priority levels') and the resource ('bug priority levels'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like bug_statuses_list or bug_types_list. The verb-noun structure is precise and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. However, for a simple list tool with no parameters, the usage context is implied: use this to retrieve the available priority levels. No alternatives are mentioned, but the sibling tools cover different entities.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the record starts with uploaded=false, returns a presigned S3 URL with 300s expiry, and requires a follow-up PATCH to complete creation. It could mention what happens if the PATCH is not done, but key behaviors are covered.
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 short but mixes Portuguese and English, which may reduce clarity. However, it is front-loaded with the main action and returns value, and each sentence adds useful information. It could be more concise and language-consistent.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations or output schema, the description covers the workflow and return value but lacks details on error cases, parameter semantics (especially md5), and the exact format of the upload URL. It is adequate but not fully comprehensive for autonomous use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds no explanation of the parameters beyond what the schema already provides. Schema coverage is 60%, with fileName and md5 lacking descriptions. The description does not clarify their purpose, leaving the agent without additional semantic guidance.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: creating a bug attachment and returning a presigned upload URL. It distinguishes from sibling attachment tools (list, delete, update) by specifying the creation action and return type.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides a two-step workflow: first call to get the URL, then PUT the file and confirm with PATCH. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention prerequisites, but the workflow guidance is clear and useful.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the mutation (setting uploaded=true) but does not mention idempotency, permissions, or side effects beyond the boolean update.
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?
Description is concise at three lines, with the key action in the first line. The tag line adds minimal value but does not significantly bloat.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple two-parameter update with no output schema, the description adequately explains the action and context. Lacks details about prerequisites or sequence, but sufficient given simplicity.
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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional meaning to the 'id' or 'attachmentId' parameters beyond what the schema provides.
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 marks an attachment as uploaded ('Marca o anexo como enviado (uploaded=true)') after a PUT to S3. This distinguishes it from create, delete, and list siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description specifies the context ('após o PUT no S3') but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. The sibling tools (create/delete/list) provide implicit differentiation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. Description reveals the core behavior (setting uploaded=true) but does not mention side effects, permissions, idempotency, or error handling. Adequate for a simple flag update.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise: two lines with a tag and a brief explanation. No extraneous information, front-loaded with the purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema; description does not mention return value or error conditions. For a simple update, it is functional but could be more complete about idempotency or prerequisites.
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 has 100% description coverage for both parameters (Execution ID and Attachment ID). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states 'Confirm execution attachment upload' and explains it sets uploaded=true after PUT to S3. Distinguishes from sibling tools like create, delete, and list by focusing on the confirmation step.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Implies usage after uploading to S3, but does not explicitly mention when not to use or compare to alternatives. The context is clear but lacks explicit alternative guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses atomicity (if any record fails, none are created) and a key constraint (paid-plan only). It does not cover rate limits, idempotency, or response format, but the disclosed traits are critical for correct invocation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: two sentences plus a tag line. Every word adds value (atomicity, paid-plan). No unnecessary fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description explains core behavior and constraints but lacks information about the return value (e.g., what is returned upon success) and does not describe the nested 'targets' parameter structure in plain language. For a batch creation tool, return details are helpful. However, atomicity and plan restriction are well-covered.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 33%, so the description should compensate. It explains the overall action ('Link one entity to multiple entities') which clarifies the relationship between entityA and targets. However, it does not add detail about the 'targets' array structure, entity types, or ID formats beyond what the schema provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Link one entity to multiple entities at once'. It distinguishes from the sibling tool links_create (singular) by being a batch operation. The atomicity detail adds specificity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for batch linking with atomicity, and explicitly calls out the paid-plan restriction (free-plan gets 403). However, it does not explicitly compare to links_create or other alternatives, leaving some ambiguity about when to use the singular version.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description adequately explains behavior: returns only active members and requires membership. It does not detail response fields or side effects, but for a list tool this is sufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: two sentences plus a tag, front-loaded with purpose and followed by behavioral details. No unnecessary words.
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?
Despite no output schema, the description covers the essential: purpose, return scope (active members), and a prerequisite. No gaps for a simple list operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline 3. The description merely restates 'Project ID' matching the schema, adding no additional meaning.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists members of a project, specifying 'active (non-deleted)' members. The verb 'list' and resource are distinct, and it differentiates from sibling tools like 'projects_list' and 'organizations_members_list'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions a prerequisite ('caller must be a member'), but lacks explicit guidance on when to use vs. alternatives or when not to use the tool. The context of sibling names provides some differentiation.
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?
Discloses critical behavioral details: hard-delete of test cases, cascade removal of child folders, and alignment with front-end. Missing info on reversibility or side effects, but adequate for a delete tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three concise sentences convey purpose, scope, and key behavior without redundancy. Efficiently structured.
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?
For a single-param delete operation with no output schema, the description fully covers destructive actions and front-end equivalence, leaving no ambiguity.
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?
Single 'id' parameter with schema description 'Test Case Folder ID' provides necessary meaning; description adds no extra clarification, but schema coverage is 100%.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states 'Delete test case folder' and elaborates on the destructive scope (hard-deletes contained test cases and child folders), distinguishing it from sibling CRUD operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance beyond the obvious delete purpose. However, the behavior description clarifies it's a hard delete, implying careful use.
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 are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the response includes a presigned download URL for uploaded attachments, expired in 300 seconds, which is important behavioral context beyond the input schema.
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 short and front-loaded with the main purpose. However, the line 'Tag: Bug Attachments' is somewhat extraneous and could be removed for even greater conciseness.
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 output schema, the description adequately explains the return value behavior, specifically the upload condition and download URL expiration. For a one-parameter list tool, this provides sufficient context for an agent to understand the outcome.
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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add additional meaning to the id parameter beyond what the schema already provides ('Bug ID').
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 'List bug attachments' in both English and Portuguese, specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like bugs_attachments_create, delete, update.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description notes that items with uploaded=true have a downloadUrl valid for 300 seconds, providing context for when to use it to get download links. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it, but sibling tools imply alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses the side effects (sets state to DONE, records executedAt and executedBy) and error conditions (400 for invalid states). However, it does not explicitly state whether the operation is irreversible or if any other consequences occur, slightly reducing 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 concise with two sentences and a list of error conditions. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and efficiently adds necessary constraints.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema), the description covers core behavior and error cases adequately. It could mention the return value or confirmation, but overall is complete for its scope.
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 explicitly describe the single parameter 'id' (e.g., that it is the execution ID). With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate but fails to clarify the parameter's role beyond being required.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Finish an execution') and the resource ('execution'). It specifies the state transition to 'DONE' and recording of metadata. This distinguishes it from sibling execution tools like executions_pause or executions_run, which handle different state transitions.
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?
The description explicitly lists conditions when the tool is allowed (current state IN_PROGRESS) and when it returns errors (WAITING, PAUSED, DONE, parent test cycle FINISHED, or verdict not set). This provides clear guidance on appropriate usage and 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.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description discloses that done executions are read-only, the 'state' field is silently ignored, and the endpoint guard differs between public and internal API. However, it does not explain how other fields behave on update (e.g., partial vs full replacement) or what response to expect.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief with three sentences. The first sentence immediately states the tool's action, and subsequent sentences add critical constraints without unnecessary detail. No redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 7 parameters, low schema coverage, and no output schema, the description covers the most important behavioral constraints but lacks parameter explanations and return value information. Could be more comprehensive for an agent to use correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 14%, yet the description does not elaborate on any parameter semantics beyond the 'id' requirement. It mentions 'state' which is not in the schema, leaving the purpose of parameters like 'order', 'statusId', etc., unexplained.
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 states 'Update execution' and specifies that it cannot update 'state' or executions in 'state: DONE'. It also distinguishes from sibling tools by directing to alternate endpoints for state changes. This provides a specific verb+resource and differentiates from other update-like siblings.
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 states when not to use: executions in 'state: DONE' are read-only, and for the 'state' field, alternative endpoints are provided ('/v1/executions-run', etc.). This offers clear guidance on appropriate usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns links where the given entity appears as either entityA or entityB, a key behavioral trait. It does not mention pagination or side effects, but for a read operation the behavioral info is sufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise at 5 sentences, with a clear structure: purpose, tag, behavioral explanation, example, and response detail. It is front-loaded with the purpose and contains no fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, the description should explain the return structure more thoroughly. It states 'returns all entities linked to the given entity' and mentions entityA/entityB, but does not specify fields or format of the response. Adequate but incomplete for a complete understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema covers 50% of parameters. The description adds meaning by providing a usage example ('Pass entityType=bug and entityId as the ID of the open bug') and explaining how the parameters relate to the bidirectional response. This goes beyond the schema's enum description.
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 'List links for an entity' with a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes itself by explaining it returns all linked entities regardless of side. It is unambiguous and differentiates from sibling tools like links_create or links_delete.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides a concrete example use case ('A user opens a bug...') and explains the bidirectional nature. It does not explicitly exclude scenarios or mention alternatives, but the example gives clear guidance on when to use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description fully discloses that the tool returns execution statuses, includes both default and custom ones, and is likely read-only. It does not mention side effects, authorization needs, or rate limits, but for a list tool, transparency is adequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded with the action. The 'Tag: Projects' line adds minimal value but does not hinder readability. Overall, efficient and informative.
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?
Despite no output schema, the description explains the output content (system-wide defaults and project-specific statuses) and how to use it. This is complete for a list tool with clear usage instructions.
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 100% (one parameter 'id' with description 'Project ID'). The description adds no further parameter details but provides context on output usage. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already documents the parameter.
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 execution statuses available in a project, distinguishing it from sibling tools like bug_statuses_list or cycle_statuses_list by specifying 'execution statuses'. It further details the inclusion of system-wide defaults and project-specific statuses.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit guidance on using the output ID as 'statusId' when creating or updating executions. It does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, but the context makes it clear it's for execution statuses.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description declares that only archived test cases are returned, which is a key behavioral trait. No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It could mention that it is read-only, but the behavior is clear.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise: two sentences plus a tag line. It is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list endpoint with no output schema, the description provides essential information: what it returns and the required filters. It could mention pagination, but it is not critical for basic use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds no additional semantic information beyond what is in the schema, other than restating the requirement for at least one parameter.
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 'List archived test cases' and specifies it returns only archived ones with statusId === ARCHIVED. It distinguishes from siblings like test_cases_list and test_cases_unarchive.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly states that at least one of projectId or folderId is required, giving clear context for use. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool vs alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses that archived test cases are excluded and that at least one filter is required, but does not mention pagination, sorting, or authorization needs. Adequate but not rich.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise with no wasted words. Tag line and bullet-point-style constraints make key info immediately accessible.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and no annotations, the description covers essential usage (filters, excluded archived). Missing details on return format or pagination, but still fairly complete for a list 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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds context about the requirement of at least one parameter, but no additional semantic meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clear verb 'List' and resource 'test cases'. The tag and constraint details differentiate from sibling tool test_cases_archived_list by specifying exclusion of archived. Distinguishes effectively.
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 states the mandatory condition of at least one query parameter (projectId or folderId) and provides an alternative endpoint for archived test cases. Guides when to use and when not to.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description adds behavioral context: it restores the test case to a specified folder and returns the status to the previous or FINISHED if no previous status. This goes beyond the schema to explain side effects, though it does not detail auth requirements or rate limits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: two sentences plus a tag. It front-loads the purpose and adds essential details without verbosity. Every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description explains the action well, including status change. However, it does not mention the return value or output, which could be useful for an agent. Given the simplicity of the tool, it is nearly complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the description adds limited additional meaning beyond the schema. It reinforces that folderId must belong to the same project and not be a trash folder, which is already in the schema description. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool unarchives a test case, specifying the verb 'Unarchive' and resource 'test case'. It distinguishes from siblings like test_cases_archived_list by focusing on the action of restoring an archived test case.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description specifies when to use this tool: when a test case has statusId === ARCHIVED. It gives the condition for use, though it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives. The context is clear enough for appropriate selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses that it creates a record with uploaded=false, returns a presigned S3 URL (PUT, 300s), and requires a subsequent PATCH to confirm. This goes beyond the schema and no annotations are provided.
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?
Short and to the point, but mixes English and Portuguese, which could be confusing. The workflow is front-loaded in English, then detailed in Portuguese.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers the full creation workflow including subsequent steps, but lacks details on error handling or limits. For a creation tool without output schema, this is fairly complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 60% and description adds little beyond what's in the schema. It provides context (e.g., size in bytes, MIME type) but does not deeply enrich parameter meaning.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states 'Create execution attachment' and specifies it returns a presigned upload URL, distinguishing it from sibling tools like delete, list, update.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides explicit workflow steps: create record, get presigned URL, upload, then confirm with PATCH. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or list alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses state transition and error response for invalid states, though could mention response format or auth.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences with a tag, front-loaded with purpose, no unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given simple tool with one param and no output schema, description is fairly complete, covering state condition and error. Could specify that id is execution ID.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has one parameter (id) with 0% description coverage. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, failing to compensate.
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 pauses an execution and sets state to PAUSED, using a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like executions_finish and executions_run.
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 states the allowed state condition (IN_PROGRESS) and returns 400 for other states, providing clear when-to-use and when-not-to guidance.
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 provided, so description carries burden. It discloses directional nature (entityA/entityB roles) and paid-plan limitation. Missing details on duplicate handling or entity existence checks.
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?
Well-structured with clear paragraphs and front-loaded purpose. Some redundancy (e.g., 'Tag: Links') but overall efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Lacks output schema description and doesn't state return format of created link. Covers essential usage and constraints but could be more complete for a creation tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 50%, but description adds significant value by explaining roles of entityA/entityB with an example, clarifying parameter semantics beyond enum descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Create a link between two entities' and provides a detailed example. It distinguishes from sibling tools like links_delete and links_list.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explains when to use with a concrete example and notes paid-plan restriction. However, lacks explicit guidance on when to use alternatives like links_batch_create.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description provides a key behavioral trait: it returns only projects where the user is a member. This adds transparency beyond the tool's name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with two sentences, front-loaded with the key action, and contains no redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
While the tool is simple and parameterless, the absence of an output schema means the description should clarify the return structure. It only states what projects are returned, not the fields or format, leaving ambiguity for the agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has no parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (trivially). The description adds no parameter information, which is acceptable as there are none to describe.
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 'List projects' and specifies that it returns only projects the authenticated user has effective access to, distinguishing it from sibling tools like projects_get and projects_create.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use this tool (when needing a list of accessible projects) and indirectly suggests alternatives for specific project operations, but lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance.
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?
Describes the operation as returning schema information, implying read-only behavior. Adds value by explaining the purpose of the id. No annotations, but description adequately covers behavioral traits.
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?
Three concise sentences: purpose, tag, and usage note. No wasted words, appropriately front-loaded.
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 one simple parameter and no output schema, the description fully explains what the tool returns and how to use its output. No gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Single parameter 'id' with schema description 'Project ID'. Description does not add additional semantic meaning beyond schema. High schema coverage (100%) sets baseline at 3.
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?
Clearly states 'List custom field definitions for test cases of a project' with specific verb and resource. Distinct from sibling list tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides explicit guidance on using the returned id as projectCustomFieldId. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use, but context is clear.
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:

[![meloQA-MCP MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/swl-informatica/meloQA-MCP/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/swl-informatica/meloQA-MCP)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![meloQA-MCP MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/swl-informatica/meloQA-MCP/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/swl-informatica/meloQA-MCP)

Latest Blog Posts

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

MCP directory API

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

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/swl-informatica/meloQA-MCP'

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