VERDICT

by tejcodes-rex

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Python

Local

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation4/5
Each tool targets a distinct forensic task (file system, memory, network, hypotheses, findings). Some overlap exists between mem_plugin and mem_vol2 for Volatility plugins, and between fs_registry and fs_shimcache (both registry-related), but descriptions clearly differentiate them.
Naming Consistency4/5
Tools follow a consistent domain_prefix naming pattern (e.g., fs_, mem_, network_). Within each domain, verb_noun patterns are used (finding_propose, hypothesis_add). Minor deviations like attack_map and super_timeline do not significantly harm predictability.
Tool Count4/5
34 tools is on the higher end, but each tool addresses a specific forensic need (file system, memory, network, YARA, reporting, etc.). The count is justified given the comprehensive coverage of DFIR workflows.
Completeness4/5
The tool surface covers major investigation phases: acquisition (case_open), file system analysis, memory analysis, network analysis, hypothesis management, findings, and reporting. Minor gaps exist (e.g., Windows event log parsing), but core workflows are well-supported.
Average 3.5/5 across 34 of 34 tools scored. Lowest: 2.3/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 31 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

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

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

How is the quality score calculated?

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

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

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

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

Tool Scores

Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as read-only nature, performance, permissions, or side effects. It only lists output fields without describing the tool's operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, making it concise. However, it is front-loaded with output fields but omits the verb, which reduces clarity. It could be improved by adding a verb without adding length.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It does not state what the tool does with the pcap input, leaving the agent uncertain about its functionality and 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 input schema has one parameter 'pcap' with 0% description coverage. The description does not explain the parameter's purpose, format, or constraints, leaving the agent without guidance on how to use it.
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 specifies the resource (SMTP envelope and mail header fields) and distinguishes from sibling tools like network_dns and network_http by focusing on SMTP. However, it lacks a clear verb (e.g., 'extract' or 'parse') to indicate the action performed on the pcap input.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The tool name and resource imply it is for SMTP analysis, but the description does not provide context on prerequisites or limitations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It states 'read-only' but does not disclose other behavioral traits such as handling of directories, large files, or error conditions. The parameters offset and max_bytes are not explained in the description.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise, but it lacks structure and detail. It communicates the core purpose but could be improved with additional context without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema (not shown), the description is incomplete for a tool with 4 parameters. It fails to explain how to use offset (optional) and max_bytes (default 200000), which are crucial for controlling output. The description leaves significant gaps for effective usage.
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 coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It only mentions 'by inode from a disk image', adding no meaning to parameters like offset or max_bytes beyond their names. No documentation of expected formats or default behavior.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Read' and the resource 'content of a file by inode from a disk image', and mentions it is read-only. It distinguishes from siblings like fs_find (search) and fs_list (list) by focusing on reading content by inode, though not explicitly.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description only implies use when needing file content from a disk image by inode, but does not mention when not to use or suggest alternatives for other cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention read-only nature, performance implications, or any prerequisites. The single sentence is insufficient for understanding side effects or constraints.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is exceptionally concise (one sentence) but lacks necessary details, making it under-specified. While front-loaded, it sacrifices completeness for brevity, which is suboptimal for agent guidance.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of annotations and a single parameter, the description fails to cover essential usage context. Although an output schema exists, the input parameter and behavioral aspects remain unexplained, resulting in incomplete guidance.
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 parameter 'pcap' has 0% schema description coverage, and the description does not explain what it represents (e.g., file path, raw data). The agent cannot infer the expected format or type, which is critical for correct invocation.
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 'Distinct DNS queries with counts' clearly indicates the tool extracts DNS queries and provides counts, differentiating it from sibling network tools like network_http and network_smtp. However, it does not explicitly state that the input is a pcap file, which is implied by the parameter name but not stated in the description.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as network_search or network_overview. The description lacks context for choosing this tool, leaving the agent without criteria for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility. It does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, requires permissions, or modifies state. It only lists fields returned, omitting behavioral details like whether it analyzes a pcap file or fetches live data.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise (one sentence) but lacks structure. It conveys minimal information without any formatting or additional context, making it functional but not well-organized.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple input and existence of an output schema, the description should at least explain how to use the 'pcap' parameter and what the tool does with it. It fails to define the parameter's role, leaving the tool incomplete.
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 has 0% description coverage for the single required parameter 'pcap', and the description does not mention or clarify what 'pcap' represents (e.g., file path, identifier). This leaves agents without necessary usage details.
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 'HTTP requests with host, method, URI, and source IP' clearly indicates the tool deals with HTTP request data, distinguishing it from siblings like network_dns or network_smtp. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'extract', which slightly reduces clarity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., network_dns, network_search). There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or scenarios where this tool is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description should disclose behavior, but it only states the action without mentioning whether it modifies data, output format, or required permissions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, concise but overly minimal. It communicates the action but lacks valuable 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 single required parameter and absence of schema descriptions, the description is insufficient for an agent to correctly invoke the tool. More context about the image parameter is needed.
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 adds no meaning beyond the parameter name. It does not clarify what the 'image' parameter expects (path, URL, etc.).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'List' and resource 'partitions in a disk image', clearly distinguishing it from siblings like fs_list or fs_cat. Mentioning 'mmls' adds context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns an ID, but does not mention side effects, permissions, error behavior, or whether it modifies state. This is insufficient for safe invocation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: one sentence for purpose and one for return value. Every word earns its place, with no filler or repetition.
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 two parameters with no documentation and the lack of annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not cover parameter details, usage constraints, or behavioral context beyond the basic action.
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 has 0% description coverage and the description adds no explanation for the 'statement' or 'rationale' parameters. The agent must infer their meaning from names alone, which is inadequate.
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 records an investigative hypothesis and returns an ID. While it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like hypothesis_set_state, the action is specific and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are there any prerequisites or context for usage. The description only implies its purpose for testing hypotheses.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It implies a read operation but does not disclose safety, authorization needs, or side effects. Minimal behavioral transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, efficient but overly brief. It lacks necessary detail for a tool with no parameter descriptions and no usage guidance.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's single parameter and existing output schema, the description should provide more context about the command line extraction process, but it remains incomplete and vague.
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 sole parameter 'image' has no schema description (0% coverage) and the description does not explain it. The phrase 'from a memory image' hints at its purpose but offers no detail like path format or constraints.
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 extracts command lines from a memory image using the volatility3 cmdline plugin, distinguishing it from other memory analysis tools like mem_processes or mem_strings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., mem_processes for other process details). The description only states what it does without usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It implies a read-only 'generate' operation but does not state whether any modifications occur, what constitutes 'most recent activity,' or output format details. The output schema exists but the description adds no behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no wasted words. However, it could be restructured to front-load key information; currently it ends with technical details (fls -m + mactime) that may be opaque to some agents.
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 having an output schema, the description lacks essential context such as the type of input image required, the meaning of the offset parameter, and how this differs from super_timeline. The tool is under-documented for an agent to use correctly without additional inference.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description provides no explanation for the two parameters ('image' and 'offset') despite 0% coverage in the schema. The agent must guess that 'image' is a disk image path and 'offset' is a sector offset, which are not self-evident without domain knowledge.
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 it generates a MAC timeline using fls -m and mactime, identifying a specific forensic operation. It distinguishes the tool from other file system tools like fs_list or fs_cat that have different purposes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings. There is no mention of prerequisites, alternatives, or contexts where this tool is appropriate, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must disclose all behavioral traits. It mentions listing files with optional offset/inode but omits details about recursion, output format, or any side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that wastes no words. However, it could be slightly expanded to cover key missing param details without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given four parameters, no annotations, and existence of an output schema, the description is too sparse. It fails to describe the required image parameter, the recursive behavior, or what the output contains.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It explains offset and inode but not image or recursive, leaving half of parameters undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists files in a disk image, with optional starting points. This distinguishes it from related tools like fs_cat or fs_find, but does not explicitly differentiate.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage with offset or inode, but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like fs_find or fs_timeline, nor any conditions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action and allowed states; it does not describe side effects (e.g., whether previous state is overwritten), required permissions, or error states. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the purpose. It is efficient and has no wasted words. However, it omits important details that could be added without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 3 parameters (2 required), no annotations, and an output schema (though not shown), the description is incomplete. It does not cover parameter semantics beyond state, nor does it describe the output or any behavioral constraints. An AI agent would need additional information to use this tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must explain parameter meanings. It only partially addresses the 'state' parameter by listing valid values (which are not enumerated in the schema). The 'hypothesis_id' and 'rationale' parameters receive no explanation. This leaves significant ambiguity for an AI agent.
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 'Update' and explicitly names the resource 'hypothesis state'. It lists the four possible states, making the tool's function immediately clear and distinguishing it from sibling tools like hypothesis_add (which creates new hypotheses).
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 prerequisites (e.g., hypothesis must exist), nor does it suggest appropriate contexts or exclude inappropriate ones. Sibling tool names are available but not referenced.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations and a terse description, the tool does not disclose behavioral traits like whether it is read-only, what permissions are needed, or what side effects (e.g., process listing) might occur. The description merely states the output is 'injected or hidden code regions' but lacks detail on format or underlying behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no superfluous content. It delivers the core purpose efficiently, which is appropriate given the tool's specific and well-known functionality.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has an output schema, so return values may be documented there. However, the description does not explain what fields or format to expect, and given the complexity of finding hidden code, additional context about typical usage or output structure would be beneficial but not strictly required.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The only parameter 'image' is neither described in the description nor in the schema (0% coverage). The description adds no meaning beyond the schema title, failing to explain what the image parameter expects (e.g., file path, raw image, or platform-specific format).
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 identifies 'injected or hidden code regions from a memory image' and references the known Volatility plugin 'malfind', which distinguishes it from siblings like mem_processes or mem_cmdline. However, the verb is implicit ('list' or 'detect') rather than explicit.
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 alternative memory analysis tools such as mem_cmdline or mem_processes. The absence of usage context reduces its helpfulness for an agent deciding which tool to invoke.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It only states the tool's function without disclosing whether it is read-only, required privileges, or any side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise but lacks structure. It could be expanded slightly without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the output schema exists, return values are covered. However, the description omits prerequisites, error conditions, and any limitations, which are important for a tool with sibling tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The single parameter 'image' has no schema description (0% coverage) and the tool description does not explain its type, format, or constraints beyond being a memory image.
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 extracts network connections from a memory image using volatility3 netscan. It is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools like network_dns and network_http.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention when network_dns or other network tools 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?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention whether the operation is destructive, resource-intensive, or what the output looks like beyond 'summarize it', which is vague.
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 main action, no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite an output schema existing, the description fails to explain what the tool returns or how it behaves for a complex operation like timeline building. Missing details on output format or side effects.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description clarifies that 'image' refers to a disk image, adding semantics beyond the schema. However, it lacks details like supported formats or path conventions, and schema coverage is 0%.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it builds a plaso super-timeline and summarizes it, with specific mention of log2timeline and psort. However, it does not fully distinguish from sibling fs_timeline, which might be a similar but different tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like fs_timeline. No context about prerequisites or scenarios.
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 discloses the tool's output (protocol hierarchy and top IP conversations) but does not mention behavioral traits like read-only nature or file format expectations. With no annotations available, the description partially informs the agent but leaves safety and side effects unclear.
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 front-loads the output type. No unnecessary words; however, it is slightly terse given the lack of additional context.
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 tool has a simple interface (one parameter) and an output schema exists, so the description need not detail return values. However, given the many sibling network tools, the description lacks context on how this tool fits in a workflow or what preconditions are needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% for the single required parameter 'pcap'. The description only implies it is a packet capture file via the phrase 'for a packet capture', but provides no details on format, path, or constraints. The description does not adequately compensate for the lack of schema parameter documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool produces a 'protocol hierarchy and top IP conversations for a packet capture', clearly defining the output for a given input. It distinguishes from sibling tools like network_dns and network_http by focusing on an overview rather than specific protocols.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as network_search or network_smtp. The description gives no context about prerequisites or expected data.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must carry the full burden. It states the tool uses pslist and pstree, implying a read operation, but does not explicitly confirm read-only, non-destructive behavior, or any permissions needed. This is minimally transparent.
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 sentence, concise and front-loaded. No wasted words, but it could be slightly more structured by separating the purpose from the implementation detail. Still, it is efficiently brief.
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 tool is simple with one parameter and an output schema. The description covers the main function but lacks parameter semantics and usage guidance, making it partially complete for an agent to correctly invoke without additional context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has one required parameter 'image' with 0% description coverage. The description mentions 'from a memory image' but does not explain the expected format, file path, or any constraints. This leaves significant ambiguity for the agent.
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 processes from a memory image using Volatility's pslist and pstree plugins. It specifies the verb 'listing', the resource 'processes', and the source 'memory image', effectively distinguishing it from siblings like mem_cmdline or mem_malfind.
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 explicit guidance on when or when not to use this tool, nor does it mention alternatives. The purpose is clear but the context of choice among sibling tools is absent.
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?
Without annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the tool lists evidence objects and records hashes, implying it is read-only. However, it does not state whether the tool creates a new case or requires an existing one, nor does it describe permissions or side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description consists of two concise sentences with no extraneous information. It front-loads the primary action and adds behavioral details efficiently.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema, the description lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., case existence), return values, and parameter usage. For an entry-point tool, this incompleteness hinders agent understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain the 'case_name' or 'summary' parameters. The agent must infer their meaning from the tool name alone, which is insufficient.
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 an investigation' and specifies the actions: listing evidence objects and recording chain-of-custody hashes. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that perform specific analyses.
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 explicit instruction 'Call this first' provides clear guidance on when to use the tool. However, it does not mention when not to use it or any prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose side effects (e.g., overwriting existing reports), required permissions, or whether the operation is reversible. The description only states what the tool does, not its behavioral implications.
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, no wasted words, front-loaded with the verb 'Build'. Efficiently communicates the core purpose and optional behavior.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (2 optional params) and the presence of an output schema, completeness is moderate. However, lack of usage context and behavioral details reduces completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%. The description adds meaning only for ground_truth_path (a YAML answer key) but does not explain the case_name parameter. This partial coverage leaves 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?
Description clearly states it builds a structured investigative narrative and accuracy report from ledger and provenance, distinguishing it from sibling tools that focus on other tasks like auditing, file system operations, or memory analysis.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Implies when to use the ground_truth_path parameter but does not explicitly state when this tool should be used versus alternatives. However, it is the only tool for building reports, so guidance is adequate.
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?
Declares 'Read-only' and output format, but no annotations provided. Lacks details on parameter constraints (e.g., 'target' format, 'rules_text' validity) and error behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, 48 words. Front-loaded purpose and output, second sentence adds use cases and read-only flag. 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?
Output schema exists, so return values are covered. However, parameter details are missing and no prerequisites or edge cases are described. Adequate but not thorough.
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 coverage is 0% and description only restates parameter names ('rules_text is the YARA rule source') without adding format, examples, or constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clear verb 'sweep' and resource 'evidence object' with specific output 'matches with offsets'. Distinguishes from siblings like 'mem_cmdline' or 'fs_find' as it is dedicated to YARA scanning.
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?
Explicitly states use cases: 'hunt webshell signatures, packer stubs, or campaign IOCs'. Does not mention when not to use or alternatives, but gives clear context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses optional raw output inclusion and mentions 'archived raw output', hinting at behavior. Does not mention error handling or rate limits, but for a simple fetch this is adequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and followed by optional behavior. No superfluous words; earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given an output schema exists (not shown), description need not detail return values. It covers the core operation and optional behavior. Could mention provenance record structure, but output schema likely covers that.
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 description must add meaning. It mentions 'include a slice of the archived raw output' for include_raw and raw_max, but does not explain raw_max units (e.g., bytes/characters) or the exact format of exec_id.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description states verb 'Fetch' and resource 'provenance record by exec_id', and ties it to tracing findings to tool executions. It distinguishes from siblings implicitly (e.g., audit_list_execs lists all execs), but does not explicitly compare to alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Implies use for provenance tracking ('so any finding can be traced'), but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like audit_list_execs, and no when-not-to-use examples.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It states the tool does not record a finding, which hints at read-only nature, but does not detail authentication needs, side effects, or what 'archived output' means.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose, making it easy to scan.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 4 parameters and an output schema, the description is minimal. It explains the purpose but lacks context on how archived output is accessed or what the output format implies. Adequate but incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%; the description adds no information about parameters. An agent must rely solely on parameter names (statement, citations, etc.), which is insufficient for 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 checks a claim against archived output without recording a finding. It distinguishes from sibling tools that record findings (e.g., finding_propose, finding_revise) by explicitly noting the output is not recorded.
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 usage context: 'testing whether a hypothesis is supported before committing to it.' It implies a non-permanent check, but does not explicitly say when not to use or name alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool is read-only. However, it does not detail error handling, performance implications, or what happens if the hive is corrupt. The presence of an output schema covers return values.
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 paragraph but well-structured: first sentence states purpose, then usage flow, then plugin examples. It is not overly long but could be more concise or formatted as steps.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity, the description provides a good overview including prerequisites and plugin examples. The output schema exists, so return values are covered. However, it could elaborate on typical use cases or plugin outputs.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains image, hive_inode (implied), and plugin (with examples), but does not mention the offset parameter. For required params it adds meaning, but offset is left unexplained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool parses Windows registry hives from disk images using RegRipper in read-only mode. It specifies the action (parse registry hive), the method (RegRipper), and distinguishes from siblings by referencing fs_find and listing specific plugins.
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 steps: find the inode with fs_find, then run a plugin. It lists example plugins. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use, the clear workflow and mention of alternative tool fs_find provide good context.
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?
Discloses the primary mutation action and logging behavior, which is critical for a write operation. However, without annotations, it lacks details on error conditions, required permissions, or side effects beyond logging.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences with no wasted words. Information is front-loaded and directly to the point.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers main purpose, usage context, and basic parameter roles. The existence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values. Still, it could elaborate on what 'self-correction event' entails and potential constraints.
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 adds meaning to parameters (e.g., finding_id is the finding to revise, to_verdict is new verdict, reason is why, trigger_exec_id is optional trigger execution ID). But it does not describe each parameter explicitly or provide acceptable values.
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 the tool revises a finding's verdict and logs a self-correction event. Differentiates from siblings like 'finding_propose' by specifying the action on existing findings with specific states (CONTRADICTED, UNSUPPORTED).
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?
Description provides explicit when-to-use guidance: after new evidence resolves CONTRADICTED finding or retracting UNSUPPORTED claim. Does not mention when not to use or alternatives, but the context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description fully bears the burden. It describes the operation as a KDBG scan that returns a profile, which implies a read-only, non-destructive action. While it does not detail potential errors or side effects, the simplicity of the tool and the context make this sufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and usage guidance. Every sentence adds value with no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple (one param, one output) and the description covers purpose and usage. However, the parameter documentation gap and lack of detail on the return value (though output schema exists) leave some incompleteness. The sibling context helps differentiate it.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the 'image' parameter. However, it only says 'memory image' without specifying what format or path is expected (e.g., file path, URL, identifier). This is insufficient for correct 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 clearly states the tool detects a Volatility 2 profile for a memory image via KDBG scan. It specifies the verb 'Detect' and the resource 'profile for a memory image', and distinguishes itself from siblings by noting it's used when Volatility 3 tools fail (older or 32-bit images). Also links to mem_vol2 as the consumer.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly says when to use this tool: when Volatility 3 fails to auto-resolve a profile, especially for older or 32-bit images. This provides clear context, though it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives beyond Volatility 3.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; description only says it's an extraction. Does not disclose performance, read-only nature, or limitations (e.g., pcap size). Adequate but lacks depth.
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 plus example; no wasted words. Front-loaded with 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?
Given 3 required params and output schema exists, description covers main params and gives example. Could include more on typical use cases or limitations but is reasonably 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?
Schema coverage is 0% but description explains display_filter as a Wireshark filter and fields as a list of field names, with an example. Adds significant meaning beyond the schema, though pcap parameter is not elaborated (but obvious).
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 performs targeted tshark extraction to test a specific hypothesis, differentiating it from sibling tools like network_overview (general overview) and protocol-specific extractions (network_dns, network_http). The example further clarifies.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies use for testing a specific hypothesis but does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool or mention alternatives. No when-not-to-use guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It indicates a read-only operation (listing) but does not disclose any potential side effects, authentication needs, or limits. Adequate for a simple tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, clear sentence that is front-loaded with the core action and result. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no parameters, an output schema exists, and the description specifies what is returned (function and evidence digest), the tool definition is complete for its purpose.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are no parameters; schema coverage is 100% with an empty schema. The description does not need to add parameter information, meeting the baseline of 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists all tool executions with specific attributes (function and evidence digest). It is specific and distinguishes from the sibling 'audit_get_exec'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like 'audit_get_exec'. Usage is implied by the name and description but no when-not or exclusions are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, description states 'Read-only via RegRipper', revealing non-destructive behavior. Adequate for a simple read tool, though no details on errors or performance.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences with zero waste, front-loading the purpose and actions. Every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite no annotations and minimal param explanation, the description covers prerequisite and data type. Output schema exists (not shown) which likely details return format, so description is sufficiently 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 coverage is 0% and description does not explain any parameters. Only implicitly references 'image' and 'hive_inode' via fs_find, missing the 'offset' parameter entirely.
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 the tool retrieves program execution evidence (full paths and SHA-1 hashes) from Amcache.hve. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like fs_shimcache or fs_registry.
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?
Explicitly instructs to find the Amcache.hve inode with fs_find first, indicating a prerequisite. Does not mention when to avoid using this tool, but the guidance is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states 'Read-only via RegRipper,' indicating no modification. It also specifies the data type (paths and timestamps). This is sufficient, though it could mention that it requires a Windows system image.
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 three sentences, each earning its place: purpose, prerequisite, and safety. It is front-loaded with the key action, and every word adds value with no 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?
Given the existence of an output schema and the tool's specific forensic focus, the description covers the essential aspects: data source, data content, prerequisite, and behavior. It is complete enough for an agent to select and use effectively, though it omits platform assumptions.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any of the three parameters (image, hive_inode, offset). The only hint is the prerequisite about fs_find, which relates to hive_inode. The description fails to add meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool extracts 'program-execution evidence' from the Shimcache, specifying 'paths and timestamps of binaries that ran or were present.' This is a specific verb-resource combination that distinguishes it from siblings like fs_amcache or fs_registry.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly says to 'Find the SYSTEM hive inode with fs_find first,' providing a clear prerequisite. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use instructions or alternative tool mentions, slightly reducing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool recomputes hashes and compares them, implying a read-only operation, but does not disclose potential side effects, performance implications, or output details. With an output schema present, the lack of return value description is acceptable, but a bit more detail on behavior (e.g., what happens if mismatch found) would improve scoring.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with two sentences, no wasted words. The first sentence front-loads the action, and the second provides context. Every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (0 parameters, output schema present), the description adequately covers what the tool does and when to use it. It does not mention what happens if verification fails, but this is a minor gap. The context provided by sibling tools reinforces its place in an investigation workflow.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, so the schema trivially covers them. The description adds no parameter semantics, but this is acceptable since no parameters exist. Baseline score of 4 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 a specific action: 'Recompute every evidence hash and compare to the value recorded at case_open.' It uses a specific verb (recompute) and resource (evidence hash), and distinguishes this tool from siblings by focusing on integrity verification, which is unique among the listed 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?
The description provides clear context for when to use: 'Run at the end of an investigation to prove the originals were never modified.' It does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives, but given the tool's simplicity and specific use case, this is sufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Describes caching behavior and output format (paths with inodes). No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Does not mention any destructive effects, and no contradictions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three sentences, no fluff, front-loaded with the action. Every sentence provides useful information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers key aspects: purpose, caching, output format. Missing explanation of the offset parameter, but overall sufficient for a search tool with output 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?
Only name_pattern is partially explained with examples. image and offset are not described. With 0% schema coverage, the description should compensate more.
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 the tool finds files by name in a disk image, with specific examples of name_pattern values like 'webshell' or '.php'. Distinguishes from siblings like fs_list by mentioning recursive search and caching.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Implies usage when you need to find files by name pattern, and mentions caching for repeated searches. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, but context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses key traits: literal string search, byte offset output, no symbol table needed, OS-agnostic. With no annotations, description carries full burden and covers the main behavioral aspects, though omits details like performance or limits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three sentences, each adds value: action+output, use case, compatibility. No wasted words, front-loaded with key information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers main functionality and use case adequately. Output schema exists, so return values need not be detailed. Lacks mention of error handling or edge cases, but overall sufficient for a low-complexity tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It explains the search is literal and returns offsets, but doesn't individually describe 'image', 'pattern', or 'ignore_case'. Parameter names are self-explanatory, and context (literal string, grep-like) adds value beyond schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states it searches a memory image for a literal string and returns byte offsets. Differentiates from siblings by specifying 'strings + grep, no symbol table required' and 'works on any raw memory image regardless of OS profile', distinguishing it from other memory analysis 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?
Explicitly says to use for cross-source IOC correlation to confirm artifacts from disk are resident in memory. Provides clear context but no explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tools, though the sibling list implies alternatives for structured data.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses deterministic behavior, scope over CONFIRMED/INFERRED findings, and evidence citations. However, it omits details on permissions, side effects, or rate limits, which would enhance transparency for a zero-annotation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence provides value: deterministic nature, scope, and timing. No redundancy or unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given zero parameters and an output schema (which explains return values), the description covers usage context, scope, and behavior. It is sufficient for an agent to understand when and how to invoke the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Zero parameters and 100% schema coverage set a baseline of 4. The description explains the tool's operation without needing parameter details, adding adequate meaning beyond the empty 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 uses a specific verb ('Map') and resource ('corroborated findings to MITRE ATT&CK techniques'), clearly stating the tool's function. It distinguishes from sibling tools (e.g., corroborate_claim, hypothesis_add) by focusing on mapping confirmed/inferred findings to attack techniques.
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?
Explicitly states 'Use this near the end of an investigation to frame the kill chain,' providing when to use it. Implicitly indicates not to use it earlier or without corroborated findings, but does not explicitly list alternative tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly states the tool is read-only and that VERDICT exposes no write primitive, and it lists refused behaviors (write plugins and output/dump flags). This is good transparency, though it could mention other behavioral aspects like error handling.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is only two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and immediately followed by restrictions. Every word adds value, with no 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?
Given the tool's complexity (3 params, no schema descriptions, has output schema), the description covers purpose, restrictions, and examples. It is fairly complete, though missing parameter format details are not critical due to the output 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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning. It implies 'image' is the memory image and 'plugin' is a plugin name, and 'extra_args' can be used but without details. This adds some context but not enough to fully compensate for the missing 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 clearly states the tool runs a read-only volatility3 plugin by name to test a hypothesis. It distinguishes from sibling tools like mem_cmdline, which are specific plugins, making this a generic runner.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly lists which plugins are appropriate (inspection plugins like pslist, netscan, malfind) and which are forbidden (write plugins like dumpfiles). It also states that output/dump flags are refused, providing clear guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so description carries full burden. Discloses return format ('structured rows with PIDs, addresses, etc.'), behavior ('profile auto-detected and cached'), and constraints ('dump/output plugins and flags are refused'). This is good transparency, though minor details like error handling or performance are missing.
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 dense paragraph that avoids fluff. Each sentence adds value: lists plugins, explains auto-detection, return format, and constraints. However, it could benefit from minor restructuring (e.g., bullet points) for easier parsing by an agent.
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?
With 4 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema existing, the description covers return format and constraints adequately. It explains the auto-detection and caching behavior. It does not mention permissions or error handling, which would be helpful but not critical given the output schema provides return structure.
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 description coverage is 0%, so description must add meaning. It clarifies each parameter: 'image' is the memory image, 'plugin' is a Vol2 plugin, 'profile' can be empty for auto-detection, and 'extra_args' can be used but warns against dump/output flags. This provides essential semantics beyond the raw schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it runs Volatility 2 plugins for memory forensics on images Vol 3 cannot load, listing common plugins. It distinguishes from Vol 3, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like mem_processes or mem_plugin, which may have overlapping functionality.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly states when to use: 'on images Volatility 3 cannot load'. Provides exclusions: 'Dump/output plugins and flags are refused' and recommends 'use read-only plugins'. Also explains profile auto-detection, guiding the agent on parameter handling.
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?
With no annotations, the description fully discloses the corroboration engine's behavior, claim types, citation format, and expected verdicts, including guidance on handling outcomes.
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 well-structured, starting with purpose, then claim types, citation format, and verdict handling. Every sentence adds value without 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?
Given the complexity (6 parameters, nested citations) and presence of output schema, the description covers key behavioral aspects but misses some parameter details like 'confidence'.
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?
Despite 0% schema coverage, the description explains 'claim_type' with its values and the citation dict format. However, it does not explain 'hypothesis_id', 'confidence', or 'conflicting_citations'.
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 'Propose a finding' and explains the corroboration engine workflow, distinguishing it from siblings like 'finding_revise' and 'corroborate_claim'.
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 context on when to propose a finding with citations and claim type, and advises on handling UNSUPPORTED or CONTRADICTED verdicts. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

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

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

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![verdict MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/tejcodes-rex/verdict/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/tejcodes-rex/verdict)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![verdict MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/tejcodes-rex/verdict/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/tejcodes-rex/verdict)

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/tejcodes-rex/verdict'

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