asset-aware-mcp

by u9401066

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: v1.0.1
Disambiguation2/5
Many tools have overlapping purposes. For example, get_docx_content, fetch_document_asset, document, document_asset, section, and docx all provide access to document content. The numerous consolidated entrypoints (job, document, evidence, knowledge, etc.) that dispatch via an 'op' parameter create ambiguity, as an agent can't easily tell which tool to use. Generic names like 'document' or 'job' further blur boundaries with more specific tools.
Naming Consistency3/5
There is a mix of patterns. Some tools follow a consistent verb_noun style (ingest_documents, list_documents, get_job_status, save_docx, find_evidence_spans), and the table_* group (plan_table, table_manage, table_data) is consistent. However, several single-word names (job, document, evidence, section, docx, knowledge) are vague and break the pattern, making the set feel inconsistent.
Tool Count2/5
With 30 tools, the count is above the 25 threshold that would be considered heavy. More importantly, many tools are consolidated facades (e.g., document, docx, table_* entrypoints) that duplicate existing functionality, inflating the count and adding cognitive load. The server would be better with fewer, more distinct tools.
Completeness3/5
The tool surface covers a wide range of operations: document ingestion (PDF/DOCX), asset extraction (tables, figures, sections), citation/evidence management, and comprehensive table workflows (plan, create, manage, cite, draft, history). However, gaps exist: there is no explicit document deletion or metadata update, and the consolidated entrypoints make it harder to discover the actual operations. Some dead ends remain, like the lack of a clear way to remove documents or manage document-level assets beyond retrieval.
Average 3/5 across 29 of 30 tools scored. Lowest: 1/5.
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
- Last stable release on August 13, 2026
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under Apache 2.0.
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 mention any side effects, permissions, or behavioral characteristics. The tool's behavior is entirely opaque.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness1/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While the description is brief, its brevity comes at the expense of clarity. It lacks the necessary structure to be considered well-organized or informative, making it effectively useless.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (20 parameters, multiple optional fields), the description is grossly insufficient. It does not provide any context about the tool's role within the broader document processing workflow.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description does not explain any of the 20 parameters, leaving their purpose and relationships completely unclear. It adds no additional meaning to the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Consolidated document asset and section entrypoint' is vague and does not specify what actions the tool performs. It fails to convey the tool's core functionality or how it differs from other document-related tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description provides no context for when it is appropriate to invoke this tool or what conditions suggest its use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as safety, destructiveness, or auth requirements. The agent has no insight into side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences are concise but under-specified. The first sentence is vague, the second is about backward compatibility; neither adds useful functional detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. The agent lacks essential information to correctly select and invoke the tool.
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 adds no meaning to parameters. The critical 'op' parameter lacks enum values or explanation, making it impossible for the agent to know valid operations.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description states 'Consolidated DOCX table bridge entrypoint' which is vague and lacks a clear verb+resource. It mentions existing docx_table_* tools remain available, but does not differentiate this tool's purpose from them.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Only mentions backward compatibility but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No explicit context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior but provides nothing—no side effects, permissions, or outcomes. 'Entrypoint' is too abstract.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely brief but fails to convey meaning; under-specification rather than conciseness. Benefits of brevity lost due to lack of substance.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is wholly insufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
0% schema description coverage and the description adds no parameter explanation. The critical 'op' parameter is required but not described.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description states 'Consolidated ETL profile entrypoint' which is vague and does not specify what operations are performed. The term 'ETL profile' is undefined, and the tool's function relative to its name and siblings is unclear.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool over siblings. The only hint is 'Existing profile tools stay registered for backwards compatibility,' implying it may supersede some, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as whether the tool is read-only, destructive, or requires specific permissions. The parameter 'op' hints at multiple behaviors, but no further details are given.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short (one sentence), which is concise but at the expense of essential information. It does not earn its place because it fails to clarify the tool's purpose or parameters.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 12 complex parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is grossly inadequate. It should explain the 'op' parameter, the meaning of each parameter, and how they interact (e.g., how path and section_id relate, what format controls, etc.).
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 12 parameters with 0% description coverage (no parameter descriptions in the schema). The tool description adds no meaning to any parameter. For example, 'op' is required but not explained; 'doc_id', 'path', 'section_id', and others remain opaque.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Consolidated section navigation entrypoint' gives only a vague sense of the tool's domain (sections and navigation). It does not specify what operations are possible (e.g., get, list, modify) nor distinguish it from sibling tools like 'document' or 'evidence'. The parameter 'op' likely indicates the action but is left unexplained.
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. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or context that would help an agent decide to invoke 'section' instead of other document-related tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It states only that the wrapper preserves legacy parameters/outputs and adds an operation-based facade; it does not disclose side effects, permissions, failure behavior, return shapes, or what operations mutate state.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and free of wordiness, but this is under-specification rather than useful conciseness. For a 12-parameter consolidated entrypoint, three high-level sentences do not provide actionable structure.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given zero schema coverage, no output schema, no annotations, and many sibling tools, the description is wholly insufficient. An agent cannot determine how to invoke this tool correctly, what operation to choose, or what the tool will return.
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 explains none of the 12 parameters. It only references an 'op' concept without enumerating valid operations, required arguments, parameter interdependencies, or even the meaning of 'force', 'strict', 'from_md', and 'dfm_content'.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description calls itself a 'Consolidated DOCX/DFM entrypoint' and a 'wrapper'/'operation-based facade,' but never states what the tool actually does or which operations it exposes. It is not a tautology, but it is too vague to distinguish from the many functional sibling tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description notes that legacy DOCX tools remain registered, which implies they can be used directly, but it gives no guidance on when to use this wrapper instead. There are no explicit alternatives, conditions, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only calls the tool an 'entrypoint.' The presence of an 'op' parameter suggests it dispatches operations, but no details about side effects, safety (e.g., destructive actions), or required permissions are given.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence, but it is under-specified rather than concise. It omits essential details, making it ineffective for tool selection and invocation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (15 parameters, no output schema, many siblings), the description is completely inadequate. It fails to cover purpose, parameters, behavior, or usage context, leaving the agent with almost no information.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no information about any of the 15 parameters. Even the required 'op' parameter is not explained, leaving the agent unable to understand parameter roles or constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Consolidated citation evidence entrypoint' is vague and does not specify what the tool actually does. It fails to distinguish the tool from siblings like citation_bundle or find_evidence_spans, which likely have overlapping functionality.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose whether operations are read-only or destructive (e.g., cancel is destructive). It lacks information on permissions, side effects, or rate limits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short (two sentences) and to the point, but it sacrifices necessary detail. It is front-loaded with the core idea, but the brevity reduces usefulness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that there are 3 parameters (one required), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the behavior of each operation, return format, or prerequisites, making it hard for an AI agent to use correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no additional meaning for the three parameters (op, job_id, active_only). It does not list valid values for 'op' or explain the purpose of 'job_id' and 'active_only'.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description says 'Consolidated job entrypoint over get/list/cancel' but does not specify the exact operations (e.g., which actions the 'op' parameter accepts). It also mentions backwards compatibility but does not distinguish this tool from sibling tools like get_job_status and list_jobs, which presumably offer similar functionality.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus the separate get/list/cancel tools. The only hint is 'Existing job tools stay registered for backwards compatibility,' which implies that new usage should prefer this tool, but it is not explicit.
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 carry full behavioral burden. It discloses that it creates a background job (implying async), but does not reveal safety, side effects, or what the job does in detail. The reader cannot tell if this is read-only, what gets modified, or what the output represents.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single under-specified sentence. It is not concise in a helpful way—it omits critical details. The low word count is not efficient but insufficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 10 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, the description is grossly incomplete. It does not describe what the parsed structure is, how the job works, what the output semantics are, or when to choose this over linked tools. The description is almost entirely inadequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description provides no parameter information. It mentions 'configured structured PDF extractor' but does not explain any of the 10 parameters (e.g., ocr_enabled, page_ranges, deskew). 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.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description mentions 'structured PDF extractor' and 'background job' which hints at parsing PDFs, but the primary verb is 'Create a background job', which is vague and doesn't explicitly state it parses PDF structure. It does not differentiate from sibling tools like ingest_documents or convert_document.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks any context about prerequisites, scenarios, or exclusions. It is a single statement with no usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations existed, so the description carried the burden. However, the description fails to explain behavior like parameter orchestration, dispatch behavior, return format, or side effects. Saying 'entrypoint for consult/export' does not reveal what happens when the agent calls it.
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 two sentences, which is concise, but the second sentence is about backward compatibility and does not clearly describe the tool's function. It could be more direct about the tool's purpose and parameters.
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?
Complexity is high with 11 parameters, routing to sub-operations, and sibling tools relying on this entry point. The description does not address required 'op' values, parameter validation, error behavior, or the format/meaning of the response. With all field descriptions missing, the natural language must be much richer to be 'complete', but it is not.
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?
Since the schema description coverage is zero percent and most parameters like 'op', 'mode', 'limit' have no defaults, the description should compensate, but it does not explain what each parameter does. The construction of 'op' values or the meaning of 'mode' is not elaborated. Given the zero coverage, the description provides no additional meaning beyond what is in the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description calls it a 'Consolidated knowledge-graph entrypoint' which is vague, though it does reference 'consult/export' operations. It fails to state what distinct operation the tool performs or what it creates. The title is null, and the tool name 'knowledge' is broad, which is unhelpful.
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?
It says existing tools 'remain registered', implying a consolidated interface, but it doesn't explain when to use this tool versus the specific siblings like 'query' or 'export'. It suggests clients prefer explicit tool names, but doesn't clarify if the agent should invoke this tool as a router. The second sentence does note that alternatives exist for clients preferring explicit tool names, which provides some guidance that this is a wrapper.
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 carry the full behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals that the tool dispatches to other conversion tools and preserves output-path containment, which is useful, but it does not disclose operational behavior such as async execution, mode handling, side effects, failure behavior, or security implications.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and free of fluff, with each sentence carrying some information. However, it is under-specified for a 7-parameter entrypoint tool, so its brevity is more a sign of incompleteness than effective 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?
This tool has 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, making it a relatively complex tool. The description only covers the routing and output-path containment concept; it omits conversion behavior, parameter semantics, async behavior, source/target format handling, and return values, leaving the AI agent without enough information for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description adds no parameter-level meaning. All seven parameters (`mode`, `source`, `md_text`, `async_mode`, `output_path`, `source_format`, `target_format`) are left entirely reliant on their names, with no guidance on formats, defaults, relationships, or required values beyond the required flags.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description identifies this as a 'Consolidated document conversion entrypoint' that 'dispatches to the existing conversion tools', so the core purpose of converting documents is clear. However, it does not mention a specific conversion verb/resource or name the underlying tools, leaving the actual scope vague relative to the many conversion-related siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'Consolidated ... entrypoint' implies this should be used as a routing tool for document conversion, and the mention of 'output-path containment policy' provides some contextual guidance. But there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over the sibling conversion tools, no negative cases, and no alternatives named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It simply states the action without indicating side effects, authentication needs, or whether it is read-only. The description is too brief to inform an agent about behavioral outcomes beyond a simple verification.
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 sacrifices necessary detail. It is front-loaded with the action but lacks bullet points or additional context that would improve usability. It earns a 3 as it is neither overly verbose nor sufficiently informative.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (nested object parameter, no parameter descriptions, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It does not explain input formats, return values (output schema exists but is not discussed), or error scenarios. The description is minimally viable but leaves significant gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not add any meaning to the 'ref' parameter. It does not explain what 'span-level AssetRef' entails, expected structure, or examples. The agent has no parameter guidance beyond the schema type.
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 action 'verify' and the resource 'span-level AssetRef against the persisted citation index'. It is clear about what the tool does, though the term 'span-level AssetRef' may be jargon. It does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'citation_bundle' or 'evidence', but the purpose is adequately stated.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or conditions that would help an agent decide to use this tool over siblings like 'find_evidence_spans' or 'document_asset'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose safety traits (e.g., read-only, permissions) or side effects. It only reveals that output is AssetRef JSON compatible with table_cite.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two concise sentences, front-loaded with the action verb, and contains no unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (5 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations) and the existence of an output schema, the description fails to cover parameter semantics, usage context, and behavioral details, leaving significant gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no explanation of the five parameters (doc_id, query, span_id, span_kinds, limit). The agent receives no guidance on parameter usage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool searches for evidence spans with exact locator metadata and mentions the output format. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on spans for citation, but does not explicitly contrast with the 'evidence' 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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it is for producing input to table_cite, but lacks when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses operations and includes notes about '含引用' (with reference) for get_row and get_cell, but does not mention side effects, authentication, rate limits, or behavior for unlisted operations like query_rows.
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 well-structured with headers and bullet points, efficiently conveying operations and parameters. However, it is somewhat lengthy due to repeated notes like '含引用' and could be tightened.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (14 parameters, multiple operations, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It ignores the query_rows operation and many parameters. The output schema exists but is not explained. Examples cover only three operations, leaving gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, yet the description only explains a subset of parameters (operation, table_id, rows, row, row_index, column_name, value). It omits crucial parameters like row_id, offset, limit, search, filters, include_coverage, and selected_columns, which are needed for query operations.
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 manipulates table data (rows and cells) and lists specific operations. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'docx_table' or 'table_manage', reducing clarity for distinguishing when to use this tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage 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 explain when to choose one operation over another. It lacks explicit context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry full burden. It lists what each entry carries (AssetRef, quote, etc.) and mentions verification status, but does not disclose read/write nature, side effects (except overwrite parameter), auth needs, or rate limits. Incomplete for 13 params.
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 six sentences, front-loaded with purpose. It is relatively concise but could be more structured (e.g., bulleting param notes). No superfluous sentences.
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 13 params, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far from complete. It does not explain return value, error conditions, or full usage scenarios. The tool is complex but the description is sparse.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only explains output_format and wiki_root; the other 11 parameters (doc_id, query, span_id, etc.) are not mentioned. The agent cannot infer their semantics from this description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description starts with a clear verb and resource: 'Export citation-ready evidence spans as a verified bundle.' It names the output format options and distinguishes this from sibling tools like find_evidence_spans or verify_citation_ref by focusing on bundle export.
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 gives context for using specific parameters (output_format='foam', wiki_root for writing), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like convert_document or table_cite. 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.
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 DOES disclose the most critical behavioral subtlety — that preflight never accepts file_paths — which is genuinely valuable. However, for an op named 'auto' that ingests or checks readiness, and operations like 'prepare_ai' or 'export_assets', it never reveals side effects (file writes, DB mutation, storage consumption), return shapes, or state changes. The description's only behavioral claims are about parameter rejection, not about what happens to the document at runtime.
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 bullet-based routing table is information-dense with no filler — every line adds a constraint or maps an operation. However, the description opens with a code block of routing contracts before telling the reader what any of these operations actually do, which makes it dense but not front-loaded. The final paragraph is genuinely useful context but buries the lede about sibling coexistence. It's terse for sure, but terseness without semantic anchors risks confusing an agent that doesn't already know the domain.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a facade with 8+ operations, 0% annotation coverage, 0 output schema, and a 20% schema description rate, the description only partially compensates: it nails the contract routing and preflight edge case but leaves out return values, error conditions, idempotency, and whether operations like export_assets or agent_assets write to disk or return bytes. An agent deciding whether to call inspect versus fetch_document_asset gets no guidance here on outcome, only on parameters.
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 only 20% schema coverage, the description carries heavy weight — and it does add the crucial op-dependent contract layer that no schema could express (doc_id is required for inspect/prepare_ai but rejected for preflight). That cross-parameter conditional logic is the single most important thing an agent needs to know, and the description provides it. Nonetheless, the remaining 80% of parameters (criteria, deskew, index_knowledge_graph, marker_max_pages_per_chunk, etc.) go completely unexplained in both the description and 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 nails a core purpose marker: 'Consolidated PDF document entrypoint'. The verb 'Consolidated... entrypoint' combined with the explicit op→params contract table makes the facade intent unmistakable, and the line 'Existing direct document tools stay registered' clearly positions it as an alternative to the sibling direct-tools. It loses a point because it never defines what each operation (auto, preflight, inspect, prepare_ai, etc.) actually accomplishes functionally — but as a router for PDF operations, the purpose is quite legible. The textual contract maps cleanly onto the sibling tool names (ingest, convert_document, etc.) even without explaining semantics.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives unusually specific routing rules: 'preflight: pdf_path only; file_paths is rejected' and 'auto: exactly one of file_paths (ingest) or doc_id (readiness)'. It even gives a migration note in the last paragraph. But it stops short of saying 'use this facade when...' or 'prefer this over ingest_documents if...' — the line 'Existing direct document tools stay registered' implies the choice but never gives the agent a decision rule for when to use the facade versus a direct sibling.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions operations like '建表' (create table) which might imply side effects, but the tool name 'plan_table' suggests planning only. There is no clarification on whether operations are read-only or destructive, nor any authentication or rate limit information.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with clear sections, bullet points, and emojis, making it easy to scan. It front-loads the tool's purpose. It is fairly concise, though it could potentially be more compact without losing clarity.
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 complexity (6 parameters, 3 sub-operations) and lack of annotations, the description explains the operations and parameters but lacks details on expected output, error handling, or behavioral nuances. The presence of an output schema partially mitigates the need for return value descriptions.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds some meaning by mapping parameters to operations (e.g., '[schema] 使用者問題') and providing examples. However, the descriptions are very terse and do not explain parameter formats, constraints, or behaviors, leaving much to be inferred.
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 as a table planning tool with three operations (schema, templates, from_template), which specifies the verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like docx_table_edit_plan or table_draft, which also deal with table planning.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides examples for each operation, which implicitly suggests when to use each sub-operation. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative tools, nor are there any conditions or exclusions mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses key behavioral aspects: it returns unified AssetRef results, preserves canonical format for short evidence spans, and provides only a discovery-only preview for long spans, with the caveat that full verifiable AssetRef must be obtained from persisted citations or the agent-asset bundle. This gives the user a clear expectation of output 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 concise, consisting of two clear sentences that efficiently convey the tool's function and output behavior. It is well-structured and easy to read, with no redundant or verbose wording.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
While the description covers the output format and handling of spans, it omits essential context about how to invoke the tool correctly, particularly regarding the parameters. It also does not mention the expected return structure in detail beyond the AssetRef format, leaving gaps for a user who needs to understand the full context of 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?
The description provides no explanation of the parameters (query, doc_ids, include_kg, limit) and the schema also lacks descriptions. With 0% schema coverage, the description completely fails to compensate, leaving the user without any understanding of what these parameters do or how to use them.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: to search for data sources across documents, integrating multiple databases (Section, Figure, Table, Knowledge Graph) and returning a unified AssetRef format. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_docx_content or parse_pdf_structure, which are more specific to content extraction.
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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as what scenarios warrant discover_sources instead of find_evidence_spans. It also lacks any mention of prerequisites, limitations, or contexts in which it should not be used.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description explains that citations are parallel and do not alter table data structure. It lists operations. However, it does not disclose details like idempotency of add, persistence of removals, or behavior under concurrent edits. It provides basic behavioral insight but not comprehensive.
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 well-organized with an emoji intro, bullet list of operations, parameter table, and multiple examples. It is longer than necessary, but the structure aids readability. Every part adds value, though some repetition occurs.
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 11 parameters and 4 operations with an output schema, the description covers core use cases and parameters. However, it omits details on return values (despite output schema existing), error scenarios, and some less common parameters like offset and limit. It provides a solid foundation but is not fully 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden. It explains key parameters like operation, table_id, row_index (0-based, optional for get), column_name, refs format with examples, and operation-specific params. However, it does not explain offset, limit, row_id, or the coverage operation, leaving gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool manages citations (attach, query, remove) on table cells. It uses specific verbs and defines resource scope (table cells). While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'citation_bundle' or 'verify_citation_ref', the focus on table cell-level citation management is evident.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides context on when to use each operation and examples for common cases. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use this tool versus alternatives among the many sibling tools. It explains the non-destructive nature but no exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description partially discloses behavior (returns full DFM or specific block). However, it completely ignores the max_chars parameter, leaving its behavior undocumented.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. The Args list is simple and readable, though it could include max_chars for completeness.
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?
Despite having an output schema, the description misses the max_chars parameter and lacks usage guidance. It partially satisfies completeness but leaves gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It explains doc_id (source) and block_id (with examples), but omits max_chars entirely, which is a significant gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves editable DFM content of a docx file, with optional block filtering. It distinguishes from sibling docx tools (e.g., save_docx, ingest_docx) by focusing on retrieval.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for retrieving DFM content and mentions that doc_id comes from ingest_docx, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like document or section, nor provide exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full behavioral disclosure. It describes operations and parameters but does not state safety (read-only vs mutation), permissions, side effects, or limitations. Output schema exists but return behavior is not described.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, about 10 lines, with structured headers and bullet points. It front-loads the purpose and every sentence earns its place without fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has two operations and five parameters. The description explains both modes and parameter usage but does not describe return format or prerequisites. Output schema exists, so return values are covered externally. Slightly more context on what each operation returns would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds significant value by mapping parameters to operations (e.g., limit only for changes, draft_id/text optional for tokens) and providing examples. This compensates well for the schema gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool provides table history and token estimation, listing two distinct operations (changes and tokens). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like table_data or table_manage.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Examples are provided but no when-to-use or when-not-to-use advice, and sibling tools are not mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is for planning and risk review, implying it is non-destructive. However, it could explicitly state that it does not modify the document. The description does not contradict any annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short (two sentences) and front-loaded with the purpose. However, it omits essential parameter details, making it less complete. It earns its place but could include more information 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 5 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and an output schema present, the description is incomplete. It does not describe what the output contains or how parameters affect the plan. The agent lacks sufficient information to use the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does not explain any of the 5 parameters (doc_id, block_id, table_id, target_columns, target_rows). The agent cannot understand how to fill these parameters based on the description alone.
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 'Plan a DOCX table write-back before applying structural changes.' It uses a specific verb ('plan') and resource ('DOCX table'). It distinguishes from sibling tools by indicating it's a planning step before actual write-back (like docx_table_from_context).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit guidance: 'The current DFM bridge is safest for same-shape cell text updates. This plan separates safe cell updates from row/column/header structural changes so the caller can review risk before docx_table_from_context.' This tells when to use (before structural changes) and when not (for simple same-shape updates) and names an alternative tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clarifies the action (list) and the active_only filter, and mentions return type. However, it does not confirm idempotency/read-only nature, pagination, or performance implications, leaving some behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief and front-loaded with the core purpose. The structured 'Args' and 'Returns' sections are efficient, though the separation into blocks could be slightly more integrated.
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 an output schema exists (not shown), the return description is adequate. However, the tool has only one parameter and no usage context, and lacks guidance on how to interpret results or combine with sibling tools. Overall minimal but functional.
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?
The schema has 0% description coverage for the single parameter. The description compensates fully by explaining 'active_only: If True, only show pending/processing jobs', which adds clear semantic meaning beyond the parameter name.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'List ETL jobs' which clearly specifies the verb (List) and resource (ETL jobs). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_job_status (specific job status) and job (resource manipulation).
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. There is no mention of scenarios or exclusions, leaving the agent without context for tool selection among siblings like get_job_status or job.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions one trait: 'resume' is 'Token-efficient', but does not describe side effects for destructive operations like delete or remove_column. There is no mention of persistence, irreversibility, or permission requirements. The operation names are self-explanatory, but the description adds minimal behavioral context beyond what the names imply.
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 well-structured with sections for Operations, Args, and Examples. It is front-loaded with a summary line and uses bullet points for readability. While it is lengthy (about 30 lines), each section serves a purpose—operations, parameter mapping, and usage examples. No fluff, but it could be slightly more compact without losing clarity.
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 (17 parameters, 9 operations), the description is quite complete: it covers all operations, parameter-operation mappings, and provides multiple examples. An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. It lacks edge-case guidance (e.g., what happens on invalid operation or missing required parameters), but for a dispatcher-like tool, it provides sufficient context for an agent to make initial calls.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so effectively by listing each parameter and associating it with applicable operations (e.g., 'intent: [create] comparison / citation / summary', 'columns: [create] 欄位列表 [{...}]', 'limit: [preview] 預覽行數'). It also provides concrete examples. Not every parameter (e.g., offset, artifact_only) is explained, but the main ones are, and the format is clear.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose as a table management tool (建立、刪除、列表、預覽、渲染、Schema 演進) and enumerates nine distinct operations (create, delete, list, preview, resume, render, add_column, remove_column, rename_column). It provides specific verb-resource pairs and examples, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like table_data or plan_table that likely focus on specific operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is implied through the operation list and examples (e.g., 'table_manage("create", intent="comparison"...)' shows when to use create). However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like table_cite, table_data, or docx_table. It does not mention exclusions or alternative tools for specific scenarios, leaving the agent to infer applicability.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are absent, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It indicates it lists processed documents but does not clarify what 'processed' means, whether there is a limit, pagination, or any side effects. The return fields are mentioned, but the scope is somewhat 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?
The description is extremely concise (two sentences), front-loaded with the action, and contains no unnecessary words. 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?
For a simple list tool with no parameters and an existing output schema, the description adequately explains the purpose and return structure. It could mention ordering or filtering options, but the tool appears to return all processed documents, so it is largely 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?
No parameters exist in the input schema (coverage 100%). Baseline for 0 parameters is 4. The description does not add parameter information, but none is needed. The return fields are described, which adds context for parameterless 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 lists all processed documents with summaries. The verb 'list' and resource 'processed documents' are specific. Among sibling tools, there is no other list tool for documents, making it distinct.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., search, fetch individual document) or mention any preconditions or filters.
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?
无注释，描述承担全责。描述了转换流程、输出文件结构、旧版格式支持，且说明了通过 LibreOffice 转换，这提供了一些行为信息。但未涉及副作用、权限需求、失败情况或是否可逆，对于摄取工具通常安全，但描述未明确声明破坏性状态，因此部分透明。
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?
描述结构清晰，有分节（转换流程、支持元素、输出目录），开头总结了功能，后面详述细节。虽然较长，但每条信息对工具使用均有帮助，没有冗余。较复杂工具需要详细说明，因此适当，但可精简。
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?
工具复杂度较高（解析、转换、输出多文件），描述覆盖了主要方面：支持格式、转换中间表示、输出目录结构、支持复杂元素，并存在输出 schema 说明返回值。但缺少错误处理、性能考虑、权限需求及与兄弟工具的边缘情况，整体较完整但仍有提升空间。
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?
只有一个参数 file_path，schema 无描述（覆盖率为0%），但描述中 Args 部分明确说明 'file_path: .docx 或 .doc 檔案的絕對路徑'，提供了参数的类型（绝对路径）和格式要求，这远超 schema 提供的信息，因此充分补偿了低覆盖率。
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?
描述明确说明工具作用：摄取 .docx/.doc 文件并转换为 DFM 格式，动词明确（攝入/轉換），资源明确（文件）且输出清晰，包含详细输出目录结构。与兄弟工具如 convert_document、save_docx 有明确区分，因为它聚焦于摄取并转换为特定文档格式。
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?
描述隐含使用场景（处理 docx/doc 文件），但未明确说明何时使用此工具而不是其他兄弟工具（如 convert_document、save_docx）。没有提供排除条件或替代方案，但由于描述了详细输出结构，用户能推断用途，但缺少显式指南。
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 auto-save and resume after interruption. However, with no annotations, it lacks details on destructive consequences (e.g., delete), authentication needs, or rate limits. Moderate transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Well-structured with sections, emoji, bullet list, and examples. Not overly verbose but could be slightly more concise. Overall effective.
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 10 parameters and operation variants, the description covers all parameter uses, provides examples, and mentions auto-save. Output schema exists but is not described; still, the description is fairly complete for a draft 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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds significant value by explaining each parameter's purpose per operation (e.g., draft_id, rows). Provides clarity 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 it is a draft workflow for tables, listing all operations (create, update, add_rows, resume, commit, list, delete). It distinguishes from sibling tools like table_manage by focusing on the draft lifecycle.
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 mentions suitability for long table creation processes and auto-save/resume. Provides operation-specific parameter documentation and examples, but does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: the safety check for content shrinkage, the force override, and the track_changes mechanism (writing w:del/w:ins). It also explains the merge strategy and rebuild process. However, it does not mention permissions, side effects, or error handling in detail.
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 moderately long but well-structured: it starts with a summary, then lists modes, workflow steps, safety mechanism, and a clear parameter list. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is easy to scan.
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 presence of an output schema (though not shown) and the detailed behavioral description, the description is reasonably complete. It covers modes, safety, tracking, and parameter semantics, but the return value is only briefly stated as '儲存結果' without richer detail on the result object.
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?
Although the schema coverage is reported as 0%, the description includes an Args section that explains each parameter's role (doc_id, dfm_content, output_path, from_md, force, track_changes, revision_author). This adds meaning beyond the bare schema properties, clarifying defaults and conditional behavior.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: saving edited content back to a .docx file. It specifies two modes (DFM and MD) and outlines the workflow, distinguishing it from sibling tools like ingest_docx or convert_document.
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 explains when to use DFM mode vs MD mode (from_md=True), the safety mechanism that refuses output when content shrinks >50%, and how force and track_changes parameters alter behavior. It does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or alternative options, but provides sufficient operational 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses return fields (progress, phase, result) and shows an example input, but does not discuss error handling, authentication, or rate limits. For a read-only tool this is adequate but not comprehensive.
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 front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by concise sections for arguments, returns, and an example. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple status-check tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: usage, parameter, return values, and an example. It is fully complete.
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?
The only parameter, job_id, is well explained: 'Job ID returned from ingest_documents' and an example is given. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's minimal type definition.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get the status of an ETL job' and explicitly links it to the 'ingest_documents' tool, differentiating it from siblings like 'list_jobs' or 'ingest_documents'.
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 guidance: 'Use this to check progress of document ingestion started with ingest_documents.' It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, but the context is sufficient for a single-purpose tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and discloses key behaviors: it returns ImageContent for figures and TextContent for others, mentions resizing behavior (default 1024px, 0 for original, N for custom), and includes page numbers for verification. It does not mention rate limits or error handling, but for the tool's complexity, the disclosure is solid.
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 with clear sections for asset types, arguments, returns, and examples. It uses bullet points and code blocks efficiently, and every sentence provides essential information. The examples are repetitive but serve as practical illustrations, so no waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is complete for the main use cases, covering all parameters except max_chars (which is optional). It includes return format and examples with different parameter combinations. However, the output schema is not provided (has output schema: true but not shown), and the description doesn't explain error scenarios or how to handle missing assets, but it's adequate for the tool's complexity.
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 compensate, and it does. For each parameter, it provides clear semantics: doc_id as document identifier, asset_type as enumerated string, asset_id with examples and guidance to use 'full' for full_text, max_size with exact meaning (longest edge, 0 for original), and max_chars is not mentioned (but it's optional and the description covers the main workflow). The detailed examples clarify parameter usage 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?
The description clearly states it fetches specific content from a document with precision and lists the four asset types (table, figure, section, full_text), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_docx_content and parse_pdf_structure by emphasizing targeted extraction. It provides detailed examples that illustrate the exact use cases.
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 explains when to use each asset type (e.g., 'table' for markdown tables, 'figure' for images) and provides examples for different scenarios (default resize, specific size, original size). It implies alternatives by noting the tool is for specific content extraction rather than whole-document retrieval, which aids selection among siblings.
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 provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral transparency. It discloses that ingestion runs in a background job for async, explains backwards-compatibility flags (async_mode, use_marker), details the default extractor (PyMuPDF) and alternatives (Docling, with security holds), and warns about memory pressure with image-heavy textbooks. This is exceptionally transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with clear sections (Overview, ETL Pipeline, Args, Returns, Example). It is detailed yet concise, avoiding repetition. Every sentence adds value, and the use of bullet points and an example improves readability without sacrificing depth.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (11 parameters, no annotations, and a simple return type), the description is highly complete. It covers the workflow, key parameters, behavioral nuances, and provides a concrete example with follow-up status checking via get_job_status. This is sufficient for an agent to correctly invoke and monitor the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It provides detailed semantics for file_paths, async_mode, use_marker, marker_max_pages_per_chunk, extract_figures, and page_ranges. However, parameters like deskew, ocr_enabled, ocr_language, rotate_pages, and index_knowledge_graph are not described, leaving some ambiguity for these self-explanatory but still important options.
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 primary function: 'Process PDF files and create Document Manifests.' It outlines the ETL pipeline steps (extract text/images, generate manifest, index in LightRAG). This distinguishes it from siblings like parse_pdf_structure (focused on structure parsing) and convert_document (likely format conversion), making its purpose 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 Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides usage context with an example for async mode ('recommended for large files') and explains when to use the configured structured extractor (for precise source tracking). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools or state when not to use this tool, leaving some room for interpretation.
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:

[![asset-aware-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/u9401066/asset-aware-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/u9401066/asset-aware-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![asset-aware-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/u9401066/asset-aware-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/u9401066/asset-aware-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

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

MCP directory API

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

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/u9401066/asset-aware-mcp'

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