Sync MCP Server

Official

by synchronicity-labs

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

TypeScript

Hybrid

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v0.1.4
Disambiguation2/5
Several tools overlap in purpose: generate_get-generation and generations_get-by-id both retrieve a generation, generate_estimate-cost and generations_estimate-cost both estimate cost, and create-lipsync vs generate_create-generation have overlapping creation flows. The upload-related tools (open-upload-widget, upload-media, assets_create-upload-url) also occupy similar territory, though their descriptions try to differentiate use cases.
Naming Consistency1/5
Tool names are highly inconsistent, mixing hyphens and underscores (create-lipsync vs generate_create-generation), using both resource-first and verb-first patterns (generate_get vs generations_get-by-id), and switching prefixes for the same resource (generate_ vs generations_). This makes the naming pattern unpredictable and confusing.
Tool Count2/5
With 29 tools, the server feels heavy. Redundancy inflates the count: two cost-estimate tools and two get-generation tools do the same thing. While the domain is broad, several tools could be consolidated, making 29 unnecessarily unwieldy.
Completeness4/5
The tool set covers the main domain well: full CRUD for assets and projects, generation lifecycle (create, get, list, estimate, delete), voice cloning and management, and TTS. Minor gaps exist (no voice update, no generation cancellation), but agents can accomplish most workflows without dead ends.
Average 3.9/5 across 29 of 29 tools scored. Lowest: 2.4/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 40 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on June 23, 2026
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

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

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

How is the quality score calculated?

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

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

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

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

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. However, the description adds no context about pagination (cursor, limit), sorting (sortBy), or search (searchQuery) behavior, which are relevant despite the annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no fluff. However, it is under-specified for a tool with four parameters, so while concise, it misses opportunities to add value without significant length.
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 four parameters, no schema descriptions, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain pagination, sorting, search, or how the response is structured, leaving the agent with inadequate information for correct invocation.
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 mention any of the four parameters (limit, cursor, sortBy, searchQuery). The description provides no meaning beyond the raw properties, leaving the agent without crucial details on how to use them.
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 that the tool lists projects in the organization, which is a specific verb-resource relationship. It is distinct from the sibling 'projects_get' which likely retrieves a single project, though it does not explicitly mention that distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention pagination, filtering, or that it returns all projects, nor does it reference sibling tools like 'projects_get' for retrieving a single project.
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 annotations indicating readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, the description adds no new behavioral context. It does not mention permissions, side effects, error conditions, or return values, leaving the agent without useful information beyond the raw annotation hints.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence, front-loaded with the action verb 'Update'. It wastes no words, though its brevity contributes to the lack of important details.
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 input schema has 8 parameters, very low schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is woefully incomplete. It does not explain that other fields are updatable, what the response looks like, or any additional context needed for an agent to confidently invoke the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 13% (only 'id' has a description), so the description must compensate for the other parameters. It mentions only 'name' and 'visibility', leaving six parameters (size, width, format, height, durationSeconds) undocumented and unexplained, failing to provide semantic meaning for the full parameter set.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool updates an asset by id, distinguishing it from sibling create/delete/get tools. However, it says only 'name or visibility' can be updated, while the schema includes size, width, format, height, and durationSeconds, so it understates the tool's full capabilities.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like assets_create or assets_delete. The description simply states the function without context on prerequisites, exclusions, or situations where another tool would be more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations already indicate. Annotations show readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, but the description does not explain possible side effects, idempotency, error behavior, or the return value. It merely restates the operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the verb 'Attach' and immediately conveys the core purpose.
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 is minimal and does not cover important contextual aspects for a mutation tool: no return value, no error conditions, no idempotency notes, and no mention of whether the project and asset must already exist. The openWorldHint=true annotation suggests unstated side effects, but the description gives no further 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?
With 50% schema description coverage, only the project ID parameter is explicitly documented as 'Project ID (UUID)' in the schema. The description helps clarify that assetId refers to the asset being attached, but it does not add deeper detail about required formats or constraints 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 the action: 'Attach an asset to a project.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and it semantically distinguishes from the sibling tool 'projects_detach-asset' by being the inverse operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as projects_detach-asset. It does not mention prerequisites, use cases, or exclusions. The intended usage is only implied by the tool name and the action itself.
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 annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the agent knows this is a mutating, destructive operation. However, the description adds no additional behavioral context—it doesn't explain whether the asset itself is deleted or just the association, nor does it mention any side effects or permissions. With annotations present, the description's failure to add any context is a notable 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 a single, concise sentence that directly states the action. It avoids verbosity, but it also sacrifices informative detail. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity, scoring a 4.
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 tool with only 2 parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but leaves gaps. It lacks usage guidelines and does not elaborate on the effect of detaching. Given the presence of annotations and schema, it is minimally complete 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?
The input schema provides complete descriptions for both parameters ('Project ID (UUID)' and 'Asset ID (UUID)'), achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter guidance, but per the rubric, the high schema coverage warrants a 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 uses a specific verb 'detach' with a clear resource ('asset from a project'), unequivocally stating the tool's function. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like projects_attach-asset by being the inverse operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that projects_attach-asset is the corresponding tool for adding assets, nor any prerequisites or conditions. The usage is only implied by the verb.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds behavioral context by stating the tool estimates cost and returns estimated credits, and the 'before creating' phrasing implies it does not perform the creation itself. Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, which are neutral but not contradicting. The description does not disclose side effects, auth requirements, or edge cases, so it is 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?
The description is exceptionally concise, using only two sentences and no filler. Every word adds value: it states the action, the target resource, the temporal context, and the return type. There is no redundancy or unnecessary detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with four parameters, no output schema, and sparse annotations, the description is too minimal. It explains the high-level purpose but leaves out critical details such as what parameters influence the estimate, how the estimate is returned (e.g., numeric credits, object), and any prerequisites or side effects. The description is not complete enough for an agent to use the tool correctly in varied contexts.
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 provides no information about any of the four parameters (model, duration, fps, reasoningEnabled). The description does not compensate for the lack of schema descriptions, leaving the agent to infer meaning from parameter names alone. This is insufficient for reliable parameter usage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: estimating credit cost before creating a generation. It uses a specific verb ('estimate') and resource ('generation') and adds the scoping detail 'before creating it'. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the similarly named sibling 'generate_estimate-cost', so it lacks full sibling discrimination.
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 phrase 'before creating it' provides clear contextual guidance on when to use this tool: as a preliminary step to creation. It implies a usage order relative to generation creation, but it does not mention exclusions or alternative tools explicitly. This meets the 'clear context, no exclusions' level.
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safe read nature is covered. However, the description adds no additional behavioral context such as what happens if the ID is not found, whether the provider is mandatory, or what the response contains. It simply restates the retrieval action without new information.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence, 'Get a voice by ID', which is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words. It directly states the function without ambiguity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with two parameters (one of which is ambiguous) and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It does not explain the role of 'provider', what a valid response looks like, or any nuances between 'premade provider id' and 'cloned voice UUID'. Given the available sibling context and schema, more detail is needed for an agent to invoke it correctly without confusion.
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 50% (id is described in the schema, but provider has no description). The tool description 'Get a voice by ID' only reinforces the id parameter and does not explain the 'provider' parameter, its optionality, or how it affects the lookup. Since coverage is below 50%, the description should compensate, but it does not.
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 a voice by ID' uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('voice'), clearly indicating a retrieval operation for a single voice. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'voices_get-voices' (listing all voices) and 'voices_delete-voice'.
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?
Usage is implied (when you have a voice ID and need its details), but the description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'voices_get-voices' or how it relates to the 'provider' parameter. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description doesn't need to cover safety basics. It adds some behavioral context by mentioning the asset becomes 'reusable' and returns an id for use in future operations. However, it omits details like URL validation, file type requirements, persistence scope, or any side effects. The contribution beyond annotations is modest but present.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and contains zero filler. Every phrase earns its place: the action, the example URL source, and the output usage. This is an ideal concise structure.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 12 parameters, no output schema, and openWorldHint=true, the description is too brief. It does not explain the return object structure (only mentions an 'id'), does not clarify the 'type' enum, and provides no guidance on optional fields or project/visibility scoping. Given the complexity and lack of schema descriptions, the description leaves significant gaps that could lead to incorrect invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 0%, and there are 12 parameters, yet the description only explains the 'url' parameter (via example source). The required 'type' parameter and all other optional parameters (e.g., name, size, visibility, projectId) are left entirely unexplained. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions, providing almost no semantic meaning for the vast majority 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Register a media URL as a reusable asset' with a specific verb ('register') and resource ('media URL'). It also explains the expected outcome (returns an asset id) and differentiates from siblings like assets_get, assets_delete, and assets_update. The use cases (generation input, voice-clone sample) further clarify its purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context on when to use the tool: when you have a public URL or the URL returned from assets_create-upload-url. It implies the workflow of creating an upload URL first, then registering it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternative tools like upload-media or open-upload-widget, so it lacks explicit exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds the organizational scope ('in your organization') and the primary purpose, but does not disclose other behavioral traits like pagination, filtering capabilities, or result format. This is adequate but minimal beyond the annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two concise sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource. It wastes no words, and every phrase adds value (purpose and usage).
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite good annotations, the description is sparse given the tool's complexity: 7 optional parameters, no output schema, and no mention of pagination, filtering, sorting, or result structure. The description only covers the basic list action and a single use case, leaving the agent uninformed about important behavioral and parameter details.
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 0% schema coverage, the description must compensate by explaining the parameters, but it does not mention any of the 7 parameters (limit, types, cursor, sortBy, userId, projectId, searchQuery). The phrase 'video/audio/image' hints at types but does not define the 'types' parameter or any other semantics. 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's function with a specific verb and resource: 'List assets (video/audio/image) in your organization.' It also conveys the intended use case ('Use to find an existing assetId'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like assets_get (single asset) without requiring explicit comparison.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context on when to use the tool: 'Use to find an existing assetId.' This implies the tool is for discovering assets by ID. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, such as when needing a single asset's details versus a list.
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 already indicate this is a mutation (readOnlyHint=false) and not destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds the specific fields that can be updated, which is useful context, but it does not disclose behavioral details such as whether partial updates are supported or how unspecified fields behave. This is acceptable given the annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource. It contains no filler or redundant information, and every word contributes to the meaning.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not specify whether the update is partial (only provided fields are changed) or full replacement, nor what the response contains. While annotations provide safety info, the tool's usage semantics are under-specified for an agent to invoke it correctly with confidence.
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 20% (only 'id' is described). The description lists the parameter names (name, description, visibility, mode) but adds no additional meaning about their semantics, allowed values, or constraints beyond what the schema enums provide. For example, 'mode' and 'visibility' are not explained. The description fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool updates a project's fields (name, description, visibility, mode). It uses a specific verb ('update') and resource ('project'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like projects_create, projects_get, and projects_delete.
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 when to use the tool (when you need to modify project attributes) but provides no explicit guidance on alternatives or exclusions. It does not say when not to use it or mention related tools like projects_attach-asset, but the purpose is clear enough to infer 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?
Annotations already mark the tool as destructive (destructiveHint: true) and not read-only, so the deletion behavior is covered. However, the description adds no additional behavioral context beyond 'by id', such as whether deletion is permanent, irreversible, or if it affects related resources like projects. It does not contradict the annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence, 'Delete an asset by id.', with no filler or redundant wording. It is appropriately sized for a simple one-parameter delete operation.
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 tool with one required parameter, the description plus the schema and annotations provide sufficient information for an agent to select and invoke it. It could be improved by noting the outcome of the operation (e.g., success response or errors), but it is largely complete given the low complexity.
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 fully documents the only parameter 'id' with the description 'Asset ID' (100% coverage). The description's mention of 'by id' does not add any semantic detail beyond what the schema already 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 uses the specific verb 'Delete' with the resource 'asset' and indicates the operation is by id, making the tool's function unambiguous. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like assets_get, assets_create, and assets_update, which perform different operations on the same resource.
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 versus alternatives or mention any exclusions. The usage is implied by the verb 'Delete' and the requirement of an id, but there is no guidance about prerequisites, side effects, 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?
Annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and not destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds context that it produces standalone speech audio, but does not disclose side effects, output format, or any required permissions beyond what annotations provide. It does not contradict the annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and immediately followed by clear exclusion/alternative guidance. No wasted words.
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?
While purpose and usage are well covered, the description omits essential invocation details: no explanation of the five parameters, no return value description (no output schema), and no mention of optional parameters or performance/cost implications. The agent lacks enough information to confidently call the tool without further inquiry.
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 0% schema description coverage and zero parameter descriptions in the tool description, the agent has no guidance on the meaning of stability or similarityBoost, and only implicit hints about script (text) and voiceId from the example mention of create-lipsync. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of parameter documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool synthesizes standalone speech audio from text, using a specific verb and resource. It directly distinguishes itself from the sibling create-lipsync tool, so the agent knows exactly when to choose this tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly states when to use ('only when the user specifically asks for an audio file or voice preview') and when not to use ('Do not use for lipsync requests'), naming the alternative tool (create-lipsync) and its relevant parameters. This is exemplary 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds no extra behavioral context such as error handling or return format, but does not contradict annotations either.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the key information. There is zero waste and it perfectly matches the tool's purpose.
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 getter with one required parameter and clear annotations, the description is adequately complete. It lacks details about return values or not-found behavior, but the tool's simplicity makes the minimal description sufficient.
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%: the 'id' parameter is described as 'Project ID (UUID)' in the schema. The description adds no further parameter meaning, so the baseline 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 a project by id', using a specific verb 'Get' with the resource 'project' and the identifier. It distinguishes from sibling tools like projects_get-all and projects_update, as it explicitly targets a single project by ID.
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 context implies use when you have a specific project ID and need the full project object. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like projects_get-all for listing, so guidance is only implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds the useful context that this is a pre-creation cost estimate and that it shares the request body with generate_create-generation. However, it does not disclose whether the tool has any side effects (e.g., consumes credits, logs calls) or address the readOnlyHint=false annotation, leaving some ambiguity. No direct contradiction with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences long, front-loaded with the core action, and contains no filler. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description conveys the essential purpose and relationship to another tool, but lacks details on the output format (cost estimate structure), parameter semantics, and any usage constraints. Given the absence of an output schema and parameter descriptions, more context would be needed for full self-sufficiency.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema coverage, the description partially compensates by stating 'Takes the same body as generate_create-generation,' which points to another tool for parameter meaning. However, it does not directly explain the parameters (e.g., fps, duration, reasoningEnabled), leaving the agent to cross-reference.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Estimate') and resource ('credit cost of a generation'), and explicitly distinguishes it from generation creation by noting 'before creating it.' This differentiates it well from sibling tools like generate_create-generation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for when to use this tool ('before creating it') and references generate_create-generation, indicating it is a pre-flight check with the same request body. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the implied usage is clear.
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?
Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses long-poll behavior, timeout semantics (returns current state on timeout), and instructs that outputUrl must be copied verbatim, not reconstructed. This is valuable operational detail.
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, front-loaded sentences: purpose, usage context, and a critical constraint. Every sentence earns its place, with 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?
Annotations and output schema cover safety and return values, and the description adds useful operational details. However, the contradictory timeout suggestion and lack of distinction from a sibling tool prevent it from being fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema covers all parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds ChatGPT-specific parameter guidance, but it suggests `timeout: 55`, which conflicts with the schema's stated maximum of 10 seconds. This incorrect addition undermines parameter understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Get a generation by id' with a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'generations_get-by-id', which likely serves the same purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit usage guidance for ChatGPT: pass `wait: true` and `timeout: 55` to avoid manual polling. It does not, however, mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, so it falls short of a 5.
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 already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description aligns with those. The description adds minimal extra context (organizational scope and 'recent' ordering) but does not significantly deepen behavioral disclosure beyond what annotations provide.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two short sentences with the primary action front-loaded. No filler or repetition; every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and use.
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 is sufficient for a read-only list tool with well-annotated parameters and safety hints. It covers the main use case and hints at response relevance (ids, status). Minor gap: no mention of response structure, but output schema is absent so this might be expected.
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 all three parameters (limit, cursor, status) are already documented in the schema. The tool description does not add any additional parameter-level meaning or clarify usage 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 uses a specific verb ('List') with a clear resource ('recent generations for your organization') and explicitly states its purpose ('find generation ids or check status'). This distinguishes it from singular getters like generate_get-generation and generations_get-by-id.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear use cases: to find generation ids or check status. It does not explicitly exclude use of sibling tools, but the context implies it is for listing multiple recent generations, which is sufficient guidance for most scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare read-only and non-destructive. The description adds that the tool is organization-scoped and returns status and outputUrl when completed, providing useful behavioral context beyond annotations. No contradiction.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, front-loaded with the action, includes scope and return information, and contains no unnecessary words. Efficient and well-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 simple get-by-id tool with one parameter, an output schema, and safety annotations, the description is complete. It covers purpose, scope, and expected response contents.
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 has 100% coverage with 'Generation ID' description for the 'id' parameter. The tool description does not add any extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, 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?
Clearly states 'Get a generation by id' with a specific verb and resource, adds 'organization-scoped' to distinguish from similar tools, and mentions return status and outputUrl. Unambiguous and differentiates 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 Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Implies usage when you have a generation ID and need status/outputUrl, but does not explicitly mention alternatives (e.g., generate_get-generation) or exclusion criteria. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already signal destructive intent (destructiveHint=true), and the description adds meaningful behavioral details beyond that: the terminal-state requirement and the 409 error for in-progress generations. This gives the agent a clear picture of constraints and error handling, enhancing transparency without contradicting annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, with the primary action front-loaded in the first sentence and a critical constraint in the second. Every word earns its place, making it concise and easy to parse.
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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, the constraint on deletable states, and the specific error code for violations. It doesn't describe the success return, but that is less critical for a delete operation given the annotations and parameter schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already provides 100% coverage with a 'Generation ID' description for the id parameter. The description's 'by id' reinforces but doesn't add new meaning beyond the schema. Since the parameter is simple and well-documented in the schema, the description adds minimal additional semantic value.
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 a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('a generation by id'), immediately clarifying the tool's function. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like generate_get-generation or generations_estimate-cost by focusing on deletion.
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 context on when deletion is valid, noting only terminal generations (COMPLETED/FAILED/REJECTED) can be deleted and that processing generations return 409. While it doesn't explicitly name an alternative tool for checking status, it implies the need to verify status first, which is sufficient for a delete operation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description adds valuable context about non-destructive side effects on child entities. This goes beyond the raw hints without contradicting them, offering useful behavioral detail.
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 remarkably concise: two short sentences, the first clearly states the action, the second resolves a common misconception. Every word earns its place with no fluff or redundancy.
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 one parameter and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It covers the primary effect and side effects, and annotations handle the safety profile. It lacks only explicit notes on permanence or prerequisites, but these are minor gaps for a tool of this 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?
The schema covers 100% of the single parameter with 'Project ID (UUID)', so the description does not need to add parameter details. No additional semantics are provided in the description, aligning with the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Delete a project' with a specific verb and resource, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like projects_update or projects_create. The additional clarification about generations and assets not being deleted further pins down the exact scope and 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?
It provides clear context on what happens when deleting (generations/assets are not deleted, just ungrouped), which helps decide between delete and detach-asset. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it's slightly below full marks.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate a write-like, open-world operation. The description adds transparency by specifying the prerequisite (upload via 'assets_create-upload-url'), the external provider ('elevenlabs'), and the output (voice 'id'). This goes beyond what annotations alone provide, though it is 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single well-structured sentence that front-loads the main action and follows with key parameters and return value. No wasted words, easily scannable.
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 4-required-param tool with no output schema, the description covers the overall workflow (upload, clone, use for TTS) and return value. The main gap is the ambiguous 'or' that conflicts with the schema's requirement of both url and assetId, which could lead to incomplete 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'assetId' via the upload flow, 'provider' as 'elevenlabs', and 'url' as 'Sync-hosted'. However, it states 'pass a url or an assetId', while the schema requires both, creating a critical ambiguity that could mislead invocation.
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 'Clone' and identifies the resource ('custom voice') and the source ('audio or video sample'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools by mentioning the return of a voice 'id' for 'tts_create', separating it from voice listing/deletion 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?
It provides a clear usage context, including how to obtain an assetId via 'assets_create-upload-url first' and how the result is used by 'tts_create'. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but the context implies when this tool is appropriate versus listing or deleting voices.
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 annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, and the description adds the specific consequence of freeing a clone slot, which goes beyond the annotation. While it doesn't discuss permanence or error handling, the annotation covers the core destructive nature, and the description adds meaningful context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately names the action and resource, followed by a useful consequence. There is no filler or wasted 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?
For a one-parameter delete operation with no output schema, the description covers the action and the primary side effect. It omits return-value details, but given the simplicity, annotations, and sibling context, it is adequately 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?
The input schema provides a complete description of the 'id' parameter ('Cloned voice ID (UUID)') with 100% coverage. The description merely restates 'cloned voice' without adding new parameter details, 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.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Delete' with resource 'cloned voice by id', making the tool's function unambiguous. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like voices_get-voice and voices_clone-voice by focusing solely on deletion.
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 phrase 'freeing a clone slot' provides clear context for when to use this tool: when a clone is no longer needed and the slot should be freed. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, so it falls just short of top-tier 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that the response includes 'details + URL', providing useful context about return content without contradicting annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise: a single sentence with no fluff. Front-loaded primary action and scope.
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 simple read tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description plus annotations provide sufficient information. It clearly states what is returned and scope.
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% (id is described as 'Asset ID'). The description repeats 'by id' but adds no new 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 'Get one asset by id (details + URL)' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like assets_get-all by emphasizing 'one asset by id'.
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 clearly implies single-asset retrieval, but does not explicitly mention alternatives like assets_get-all for listing all assets. The context is clear though no exclusions are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate this is a non-read-only, non-destructive operation. The description adds useful context about the returned `id` being used for later association and that grouping affects Studio visibility. It does not contradict the annotations, but it doesn't go deeper into permissions or failure modes.
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, each carrying distinct information. The purpose is front-loaded, and the usage hint follows directly. No wasted words or redundancy.
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 create tool with a rich schema, the description covers the core purpose and usage. It doesn't explicitly describe the output format, but it does refer to the 'returned `id`', which provides a crucial detail. The schema fills in parameter details, and the explanation of Studio grouping adds context. It feels complete enough 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.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 67%, which is moderate. The description does not add any parameter-level semantics beyond the schema, but it does imply the importance of the `id` response. Since the schema already documents most parameters, 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.
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 function: 'Create a project to group related generations and assets.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and explains the grouping purpose, distinguishing it from sibling tools like projects_update or projects_delete.
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?
It provides explicit usage guidance: 'Pass the returned `id` as `projectId` on generate_create-generation or assets_create so they show up together in Studio.' This tells the agent when to use this tool (before creating generations/assets) and how it relates to specific siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate this is not read-only and not destructive, but the description adds valuable behavioral details: the need to PUT raw bytes to the returned `uploadUrl`, the Content-Type requirement, and the 5GB max size. This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent understand the expected action and constraints.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured: two sentences front-load the core purpose and then provide necessary follow-up steps. Every sentence earns its place, covering purpose, usage, and constraints without fluff.
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 the simple 3-parameter schema and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It explains the two-step upload process, names the companion tool, and mentions the return fields (`uploadUrl` and `url`) that the agent will need. No critical information appears 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?
The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does add context: 'local file' refers to `fileName`, 'same Content-Type' maps to `contentType`, and 'Max 5GB' relates to `size`. However, it doesn't explicitly define units (e.g., bytes vs MB) or specify whether fileName should include extension, leaving some ambiguity.
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 specific purpose: 'Upload step 1: get a presigned URL for a local file.' It uses a specific verb ('get') and resource ('presigned URL'), and distinguishes itself from the follow-up tool `assets_create`. The workflow is immediately understandable.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicit guidance is given: 'Use this when your media is not already at a public URL.' This directly tells when to use this tool versus alternatives, and also implies the alternative (skip this step if media is already public). It even explains the full sequence with `assets_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?
Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint false, openWorldHint true, destructiveHint false), the description reveals important behavioral traits: it returns a generation ID and requires polling with a specific timeout, and it exposes options.active_speaker_detection for multi-person videos. This adds meaningful operational context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three well-structured sentences. The first establishes the core action, the second gives input and polling instructions, and the third covers an edge case. No redundant information; each sentence earns its place.
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 complex tool with 8 parameters and a nested input schema, the description covers the essential workflow (input format, polling, output retrieval) and specific scenarios (sync-3 image, multi-person selection). The rich schema and output schema handle remaining details.
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?
While the schema covers all 8 parameters, the description adds value by specifying that inputs use 'url' or 'assetId' and by documenting options.active_speaker_detection with allowed values (auto_detect or coordinates+frame_number), which is absent from the schema's generic 'options' object.
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 opens with 'Create a lipsync video,' a specific verb+resource statement, and clarifies input types (video/image, audio) and the asynchronous polling workflow. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explaining the generation lifecycle and options like active_speaker_detection.
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 clear usage context: how to supply inputs, call generate_get-generation with wait:true and timeout:55, and handle multi-person face selection. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives such as create-lipsync or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of full 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it is a safe read operation. The description adds behavioral context by specifying that the list is personalized ('available to you') and that it returns model IDs. No contradictory behavior is reported, and the description supplements the annotations with useful detail.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences long, front-loaded with the main action, and every word earns its place. It provides examples and usage guidance without unnecessary filler.
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 the tool has no parameters, no output schema, and strong annotations, the description fully covers the necessary context. It states what is returned, with examples, and connects to a concrete next step. For a simple read-only list tool, this is complete.
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, so the baseline for parameter semantics is 4. The description compensates by clarifying what the output will be (model IDs) and how to use them, which is not evident from the empty schema. Since there are no params, this is essentially perfect.
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 function: 'List the lipsync models available to you', using a specific verb and resource. It provides concrete examples (lipsync-2, sync-3, react-1) and differentiates from sibling tools by focusing on models rather than assets, generations, or voices.
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 gives explicit downstream context: 'Use a returned model id as the `model` in generate_create-generation.' This tells the agent when to use the tool (before generating a lipsync) and how the result is consumed. It does not explicitly state exclusions or alternatives, but the guidance is clear enough.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds behavioral scope by specifying that the list includes both premade and cloned voices and implies the returned IDs can be used elsewhere, which is useful context beyond the annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences: the first succinctly states the purpose, the second provides usage guidance. It is front-loaded and every sentence adds value with no redundancy.
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 simple read-only list tool with no output schema and strong annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: what it lists, its scope, and when to use alternatives. The optional provider parameter is implicitly covered by the ElevenLabs mention, making the description sufficiently 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?
The schema has one optional provider parameter with an enum of 'elevenlabs', and the description mentions 'premade ElevenLabs voices,' which aligns with that constraint but does not explicitly explain the parameter. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description's indirect reference provides some compensation, but it could be more explicit.
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 available voices, specifically premade ElevenLabs voices and org-cloned ones. This is a specific verb+resource that distinguishes it from sibling tools like create-lipsync and tts_create.
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 provides alternatives: use create-lipsync for making an image/video speak and tts_create for standalone audio. It clearly says when to use this tool (to list voices) and when not, making the usage context unambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, but the description adds valuable behavioral context: it only stores media and does not create a lipsync generation, and the file field must be the uploaded ChatGPT file object. This clarifies side effects and constraints beyond the annotated flags. No contradiction with annotations.
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 somewhat longer than the top-tier examples, but every sentence contributes: purpose, use case, file constraint, alternative for URLs, and follow-up action. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the main function. No filler, though a bit dense.
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 the simple two-parameter schema and the existence of an output schema, the description covers all necessary context: what it does, when to use it, what it does not do, and how to use the result (pass assetId to create-lipsync). It is fully self-contained for an agent to select and invoke correctly.
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?
Schema covers both parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), but the description adds extra meaning by specifying that the file field must be the uploaded ChatGPT file object and warns 'Do not pass URL strings here.' This goes beyond the schema's basic property descriptions, reinforcing the intended usage.
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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Upload a user-provided image, video, or audio file to Sync asset storage and return a durable assetId.' It clearly distinguishes from siblings by stating when to use this tool (user uploaded media in chat) and explicitly naming alternatives (assets_create or direct URL to create-lipsync). This is unambiguous and differentiated.
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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this when the user uploaded media in chat and a later Sync tool call should reference it by assetId.' It also gives exclusions and alternatives: 'For public URLs, use assets_create or pass the URL directly to create-lipsync.' This goes beyond vague context to offer actionable selection criteria.
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 goes beyond annotations by clearly stating the widget cannot accept video/MP4, that it should never be used for video requests, and that for image-to-speech the user must enter exact text in the Script field. Although readOnlyHint is true and 'stage as durable assetId' hints at a side effect, this is not an outright contradiction since the tool itself may only open the UI. No mention of auth or rate limits, but annotations already cover high-level safety.
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 5 sentences and front-loaded with the primary action. Each sentence carries purpose, though some redundancy exists around video prohibitions. It is structured logically from core action to usage rules, alternatives, and special cases, but is slightly longer than strictly needed.
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 the simplicity of the schema (1 optional param) and presence of an output schema, the description is fully complete. It covers default usage, special image-to-speech behavior, exclusions, and fallback alternatives, leaving no missing context for an agent to misuse the 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 already documents the requestedMediaType enum and notes video invalid, but the description adds significant context: when to use 'image' for image-to-speech, and the instruction to tell the user to enter exact requested text in the Script field. This goes beyond the schema description and directly helps correct usage.
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 opens the Sync image/audio upload widget, allowing users to choose a ChatGPT file or upload a local image/audio file and stage it as a durable Sync assetId. It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly positioning it as the default for local uploads and contrasting with video-related tools.
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?
Provides explicit when-to-use (default for local image/audio upload when not attached to ChatGPT), when-not-to-use (video/MP4), and alternatives (attach to ChatGPT then call upload-media or create-lipsync). It also gives specific guidance for image-to-speech with requestedMediaType='image' and the Script field, leaving no ambiguity.
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?
Beyond the annotations (mutation, open-world), the description discloses crucial behavioral traits: default model selection (sync-3), project creation/reuse behavior, the requirement to poll generate_get-generation for results, and the instruction to copy signed output URLs exactly. Existing project attachment is clarified. No contradictions with annotations found.
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?
Though long, every sentence adds vital decision-making information and is front-loaded with purpose. The structure flows logically from inputs to project attachment, to script handling, to media sourcing, to return handling and alternatives. No filler or redundant statements.
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 the tool's complexity (16 params, nested objects, output schema), the description fully covers all major decision points and operational steps. It explains how to supply media, how to handle user-uploaded files, how to poll for results, and when to delegate to sibling tools. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to detail return values, but the description still covers the generation id and polling flow.
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?
Even with 100% schema coverage, the description significantly enriches parameter understanding by explaining the relationships and conditional use of audioUrl/videoUrl/imageUrl vs. asset IDs vs. file objects, the exactly-one-visual/driver constraint, and the projectName default. It also clarifies that model should only be set on explicit user request, which goes beyond schema 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 opens with 'Create a lipsync video from audio + EITHER a video or a still image,' clearly stating the tool's specific function and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like tts_create and generate_create-generation by focusing on lipsync creation and pointing to generate_create-generation for advanced options.
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 provides extensive usage guidance: use script+voiceId for 'make this say X' instead of calling tts_create first, prefer upload-media for chat-uploaded files, use open-upload-widget for local files, and delegate advanced needs to generate_create-generation. It also explains when to use URLs versus asset IDs versus direct file params.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

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

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

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

Latest Blog Posts

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

MCP directory API

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

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/synchronicity-labs/mcp-server'

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