BuddyPress MCP Server

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation5/5
Every tool has a clearly distinct purpose targeting specific BuddyPress resources and actions. The naming convention (resource + action) makes it unambiguous which entity each tool operates on - for example, buddypress_get_activity vs buddypress_update_activity vs buddypress_delete_activity are clearly differentiated operations on the same resource type.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a perfect verb_noun pattern with consistent snake_case throughout. The structure is always 'buddypress_[action]_[resource]' or 'buddypress_[action]_[resource]_[subresource]' where applicable. This creates a highly predictable and readable naming convention across all 36 tools.
Tool Count3/5
With 36 tools, this is a comprehensive but heavy API surface. While BuddyPress is a complex social networking platform with multiple components (activities, groups, members, messages, notifications, XProfile), 36 tools feels borderline excessive compared to typical well-scoped servers (3-15 tools). The count suggests thorough coverage but may be overwhelming for agents.
Completeness5/5
The toolset provides complete CRUD/lifecycle coverage across all major BuddyPress domains: activities, groups, members, messages, notifications, and XProfile data. Each resource type has create, read, update, and delete operations where applicable, plus specialized actions like favorite_activity and add/remove_group_member. No obvious gaps exist for the platform's core functionality.
Average 2.8/5 across 36 of 36 tools scored. Lowest: 2/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.
If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.
MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

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

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

How is the quality score calculated?

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

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

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

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

Tool Scores

Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Delete a friendship' implies a destructive mutation, but it fails to describe any behavioral traits: whether deletion is permanent or reversible, what permissions are required, whether it affects related data (e.g., notifications, activities), what happens on success/failure, or any rate limits. This is inadequate for a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is maximally concise with a single three-word sentence that states the core action. There's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration. While severely under-specified, what's present is efficiently structured and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what happens after deletion, what the response looks like, error conditions, or behavioral implications. Given the complexity of a friendship deletion operation in a social platform context, this minimal description leaves critical gaps for agent understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% with the single parameter 'id' documented as 'Friendship ID'. The description adds no parameter information beyond what the schema provides. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate - the description neither compensates nor detracts from parameter understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Delete a friendship' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name 'buddypress_delete_friendship'. It provides the verb 'delete' and resource 'friendship' but offers no additional specificity about what constitutes a friendship deletion operation. While it distinguishes from siblings like 'buddypress_create_friendship', it doesn't clarify scope or mechanism beyond the obvious.
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?
The description provides absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., existing friendship ID), consequences of deletion, or relationships with sibling tools like 'buddypress_list_friends' for finding IDs. There's no indication of when-not-to-use scenarios or alternative approaches.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'List friendships' gives no information about whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, how pagination works (beyond what the schema implies), or what the output format looks like. For a tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, this is a significant gap in behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at just two words, with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded and to the point, though this brevity contributes to its inadequacy in other dimensions. Every word earns its place, making it structurally efficient despite being under-specified.
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 (4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and multiple sibling tools), the description is incomplete. It doesn't clarify what 'friendships' entails versus 'friends', provide output expectations, or differentiate from similar listing tools. With no annotations to cover behavioral aspects, the description fails to offer sufficient context for effective agent use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents all 4 parameters with clear descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't explain relationships between parameters (e.g., how user_id interacts with is_confirmed) or provide usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 'List friendships' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'buddypress_list_friends'. While it indicates a listing operation, it doesn't specify what resource is being listed (friendships vs. friends themselves) or provide any distinguishing detail from sibling tools like 'buddypress_list_members' or 'buddypress_list_group_members'. The purpose is vague and lacks specificity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions. Given sibling tools like 'buddypress_get_member' or 'buddypress_list_members', there's no indication of how this tool differs or when it should be preferred, leaving the agent with no usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'List notifications' implies a read-only operation but doesn't specify authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior (beyond what's in schema), return format, or whether it's safe to call repeatedly. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.
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 at just two words. While it's under-specified, it's not verbose or poorly structured. Every word earns its place, and there's no wasted text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (list operation with 4 parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what notifications are, how they're structured, what the return format looks like, or any behavioral considerations. For a tool in this context, more information is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond what the schema provides. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List notifications' is a tautology that restates the tool name 'buddypress_list_notifications'. It doesn't specify what kind of notifications (e.g., BuddyPress social notifications), what resource they belong to, or how this differs from sibling tools like 'buddypress_get_notification' (singular vs. list). The purpose is minimally stated but lacks differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
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. There are multiple related tools like 'buddypress_get_notification' (singular), 'buddypress_update_notification', and 'buddypress_delete_notification', but the description offers no context about when this list operation is appropriate versus those other operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the action without behavioral details. It doesn't disclose if this is a read-only operation, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the return format might be (e.g., JSON object). For a tool with no annotations, this leaves critical behavioral traits unspecified.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, straightforward sentence: 'Get a single notification'. It's front-loaded and wastes no words, making it easy to parse quickly. However, it could be slightly more informative without sacrificing brevity, such as by hinting at the return type.
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 of interacting with a notification system and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what data is returned (e.g., notification content, status), error conditions, or how it fits into the broader BuddyPress context, leaving gaps for effective tool use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'id' documented as 'Notification ID'. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this, such as format examples or constraints. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema adequately handles parameter semantics.
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 'Get a single notification' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('notification'), making the basic purpose understandable. However, it lacks specificity about what 'Get' entails (e.g., retrieve details) and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'buddypress_list_notifications' or 'buddypress_update_notification', leaving room for ambiguity in a crowded toolset.
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. For example, it doesn't mention using 'buddypress_list_notifications' for multiple notifications or 'buddypress_update_notification' for modifications, nor does it specify prerequisites like needing a valid notification ID. This omission could lead to misuse in context of the many sibling 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the basic operation. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as permission requirements, whether the update is reversible, rate limits, or what happens if the ID is invalid. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise with a single phrase, front-loading the key action. It avoids unnecessary words, but could be slightly more informative without losing efficiency. Every word earns its place, though it borders on under-specification.
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 of a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral context, error handling, or return values, which are crucial for safe and effective use. The schema covers parameters well, but overall guidance is insufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('id' and 'is_new') clearly. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining parameter interactions or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the action ('Update notification') and the specific operation ('mark as read/unread'), which is clear. However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'buddypress_get_notification' or 'buddypress_delete_notification', leaving the scope vague regarding what 'update' entails beyond read status changes.
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. For example, it doesn't mention prerequisites like needing an existing notification ID or differentiate from 'buddypress_delete_notification' for removal. The description implies usage for read/unread toggling but offers 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 provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but offers minimal information. 'Delete a group' implies a destructive, irreversible operation, but doesn't specify permissions required, whether deletion can be undone, what happens to group members or associated content, or any confirmation/validation steps. For a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage, this is critically inadequate.
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 at just three words, with no wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource. While it may be too brief for adequate functionality disclosure, from a pure conciseness perspective, every word serves a purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive deletion tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't address critical context like what constitutes successful deletion, error conditions, permissions required, side effects on related data, or what the tool returns. The minimal description fails to provide the necessary context for safe and appropriate use of this potentially destructive operation.
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 100% schema description coverage and only one parameter ('id' with description 'Group ID'), the schema fully documents the parameter. The description doesn't add any parameter information beyond what's in the schema, but with complete schema coverage and minimal parameters, a baseline of 4 is appropriate as the description doesn't need to compensate for schema gaps.
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 'Delete a group' clearly states the verb (delete) and resource (group), making the basic purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling deletion tools like 'buddypress_delete_activity' or 'buddypress_delete_friendship' - it only specifies what type of resource is being deleted without clarifying what makes group deletion unique compared to other deletion operations.
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. With multiple sibling tools available (including 'buddypress_list_groups' for viewing groups and 'buddypress_update_group' for modifying them), there's no indication of prerequisites, when deletion is appropriate versus modification, or what happens to related data when a group is deleted.
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 states 'List message threads', implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as authentication needs, rate limits, pagination behavior (beyond parameters), or what the output format looks like. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how the tool behaves.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with 'List message threads', a single phrase that front-loads the core purpose without waste. Every word earns its place, making it efficient and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and 5 parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like safety, response format, or error handling. For a listing tool with multiple filtering options, more context is needed to guide effective use, leaving the agent with insufficient information.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 5 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining relationships between parameters (e.g., how 'box' and 'type' interact) or usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 'List message threads' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('message threads'), providing a basic purpose. However, it doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'buddypress_get_message' (which likely retrieves a single message) or specify what 'threads' means versus individual messages, making it somewhat vague.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't clarify if this is for browsing conversations versus retrieving specific messages (as with 'buddypress_get_message') or how it relates to other listing tools like 'buddypress_list_activities'. The description lacks context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'List XProfile fields' implies a read operation but doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, what permissions are needed, whether results are paginated, or what format the output takes. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient - it doesn't describe the tool's behavior beyond the basic action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at just three words - 'List XProfile fields'. This is front-loaded with the core action and resource. There's zero wasted language or redundancy. For a simple listing operation, this brevity is appropriate and efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that there's no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete for a tool that presumably returns a list of fields. The description doesn't indicate what information is returned about each field, whether the list is filtered/sorted, or any other contextual details needed to use the tool effectively. For a listing operation with sibling alternatives, more context would be helpful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters (profile_group_id for filtering, fetch_field_data for including data). The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema. According to guidelines, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.
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 'List XProfile fields' clearly states the action (list) and resource (XProfile fields), which is better than a tautology. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'buddypress_get_xprofile_field' or 'buddypress_get_xprofile_data' - it's vague about what specifically 'list' means versus 'get' operations. The purpose is understandable but lacks sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are multiple related XProfile tools (get_xprofile_field, get_xprofile_data, list_xprofile_groups) but the description doesn't indicate when this listing operation is appropriate versus getting individual fields or data. No context about prerequisites or typical use cases is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'List' implies a read operation, the description doesn't address important behavioral aspects: whether this requires authentication, what the response format looks like (especially given no output schema), whether results are paginated, or if there are any rate limits. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at just three words ('List XProfile field groups'), which efficiently communicates the core purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple listing operation with minimal 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?
Given the context of a listing operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. While the purpose is clear, there's no information about response format, authentication requirements, error conditions, or how this tool relates to other BuddyPress tools. For a tool in a rich ecosystem with many sibling tools, more contextual guidance would be helpful for the agent to use it effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'fetch_fields' clearly documented in the schema as 'Include fields in response'. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no parameter information in the description.
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 'List XProfile field groups' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('XProfile field groups'), making the basic purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'buddypress_get_xprofile_group' (singular) or 'buddypress_list_xprofile_fields' (fields rather than groups), leaving some ambiguity about when to use this specific listing tool versus other 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 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. With sibling tools like 'buddypress_get_xprofile_group' (singular retrieval) and 'buddypress_list_xprofile_fields' (listing fields rather than groups), the agent has no indication whether this is the primary listing tool, whether it should be used for bulk retrieval, or what distinguishes it from other listing tools in the BuddyPress ecosystem.
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 states a write operation ('Add'), implying mutation, but lacks details on permissions, side effects (e.g., notifications), error conditions, or return values. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient behavioral disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly, which is ideal for conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like permissions, error handling, or what happens on success (e.g., confirmation message). For a 3-parameter tool with significant contextual gaps, more detail is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear parameter descriptions (e.g., 'Group ID', 'User ID', 'Member role (member, mod, admin)'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining role hierarchies or validation rules, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Add a member') and target resource ('to a group'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'buddypress_remove_group_member' or 'buddypress_update_member', which would require explicit comparison for a score of 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., existing group/user), exclusions, or related tools like 'buddypress_remove_group_member' for removal or 'buddypress_update_member' for role changes, leaving the agent to infer usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Create a new activity item' implies a write operation but doesn't specify permissions required, whether it's idempotent, rate limits, error conditions, or what the response looks like (since no output schema exists). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence ('Create a new activity item') that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place, with no wasted verbiage.
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 (a write operation with 6 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like permissions, side effects, or response format, nor does it provide usage guidance. For a mutation tool in this context, the description should do more to compensate for the missing structured information.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with all 6 parameters documented in the schema (e.g., 'content' as 'Activity content', 'user_id' with default behavior). The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides. According to the rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even with no param info in the description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create a new activity item' clearly states the verb ('Create') and resource ('activity item'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'buddypress_update_activity' (update vs create) and 'buddypress_get_activity' (read vs create), though it doesn't explicitly mention these distinctions. The purpose is specific but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., user authentication), when to choose this over similar tools like 'buddypress_update_activity' or 'buddypress_favorite_activity', or any contextual constraints. Without such guidance, the agent must infer usage from the tool name and schema alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but offers minimal information. 'Create a friendship request' implies a write operation but doesn't specify whether this sends a pending request or immediately establishes friendship, what permissions are required, if it's idempotent, or what happens on failure. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral aspects undocumented.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately scannable. Every word earns its place by conveying essential purpose without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on behavioral traits (e.g., idempotency, error conditions), expected outcomes (e.g., returns a friendship ID or status), and usage context. The agent must guess these aspects, which is inadequate given the tool's complexity and write nature.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters ('initiator_id' and 'friend_id') clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't explain relationships between IDs, valid ranges, or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create a friendship request' clearly states the action (create) and resource (friendship request), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'buddypress_delete_friendship' or 'buddypress_list_friends' by focusing on creation rather than deletion or listing. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other creation tools like 'buddypress_create_message' beyond the resource type.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., existing users, permissions), when not to use it (e.g., if a friendship already exists), or direct alternatives like 'buddypress_delete_friendship' for undoing requests. The agent must infer usage from the name and context alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Create a new group' but doesn't explain what happens upon creation (e.g., default settings, permissions required, whether it's reversible via 'buddypress_delete_group', or any side effects like notifications). This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence ('Create a new group') that is front-loaded and wastes no words. It directly conveys the core action without unnecessary elaboration, making it highly concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., permissions, side effects), usage context, and what the tool returns, which are critical for an AI agent to invoke it correctly in a real-world scenario.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with all parameters well-documented in the schema (e.g., 'status' options: public, private, hidden). The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 for adequate but not enhanced coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create a new group' clearly states the verb ('Create') and resource ('group'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'buddypress_update_group' or 'buddypress_delete_group' beyond the basic action, which prevents a perfect score.
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. For example, it doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., user permissions), when to choose this over 'buddypress_update_group', or how it relates to sibling tools like 'buddypress_add_group_member' for group management.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Create a new message' implies a write operation, but it doesn't specify permissions required, whether it's idempotent, error conditions, or what happens on success (e.g., returns a message ID). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence ('Create a new message') that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
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 of a message creation tool (a mutation with 4 parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like authentication needs, error handling, or return values, leaving the agent to guess critical details for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for all 4 parameters (sender_id, recipients, subject, message). The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't explain parameter interactions, constraints, or examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create a new message' clearly states the verb ('Create') and resource ('message'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'buddypress_delete_message' or 'buddypress_get_message', which would require mentioning it's specifically for creating (not retrieving or deleting) messages.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., user authentication), when not to use it (e.g., for retrieving messages), or how it relates to sibling tools like 'buddypress_list_messages' or 'buddypress_delete_message'. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Delete' implies a destructive mutation, the description doesn't specify whether this operation is reversible, what permissions are required, what happens to associated data, or what the response looks like (e.g., success/failure indicators). For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Delete'), making it easy to parse. There's zero waste or redundancy, which is ideal for conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's destructive nature, lack of annotations, and absence of an output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address critical context such as error handling, return values, or behavioral implications (e.g., permanence of deletion). For a mutation tool with no structured safety or output information, this minimal description is inadequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'id' parameter clearly documented as 'Activity ID'. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this, as it doesn't explain what constitutes a valid ID or provide examples. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate—the schema does the heavy lifting, and the description doesn't compensate or add value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Delete') and resource ('an activity item'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'buddypress_create_activity' and 'buddypress_update_activity' by specifying deletion rather than creation or modification. However, it doesn't specify what an 'activity item' entails beyond the name, leaving some ambiguity about the resource scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing activity ID), exclusions (e.g., not for deleting other resource types), or comparisons to siblings like 'buddypress_delete_group' or 'buddypress_delete_member'. This lack of context could lead to misuse by an AI agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Delete' implies a destructive mutation, but the description doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: whether deletion is permanent/reversible, what happens to the member's content (hinted by 'reassign' parameter but not explained), authentication requirements, or error conditions. This is inadequate for a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at three words, front-loading the core action ('Delete a member') with zero wasted words. Every word earns its place, making it easy to parse quickly despite its brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'delete' entails (account removal? data retention?), the impact of the 'reassign' parameter, potential side effects, or what the tool returns. Given the complexity and risk of member deletion, more context is needed for safe and effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters ('id' as User ID, 'reassign' as User ID to reassign content to) well-documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter information beyond what's already in the structured schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting, though the description could have clarified the 'reassign' parameter's purpose more explicitly.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Delete') and resource ('a member'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'buddypress_update_member' or 'buddypress_get_member' by specifying the destructive action. However, it doesn't specify what constitutes a 'member' in the BuddyPress context (e.g., user account vs. group member), which prevents a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing admin permissions), consequences of deletion, or when to use 'reassign' parameter versus other deletion methods. With sibling tools like 'buddypress_remove_group_member' and 'buddypress_update_member', clear differentiation is lacking.
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 states the action ('Delete') but lacks critical details: whether deletion is permanent or reversible, if it requires specific permissions or authentication, potential side effects (e.g., removing messages for all participants), or error conditions. For a destructive operation, this minimal description is inadequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence with zero wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place, achieving maximum clarity with minimal length.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (a destructive delete operation), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to address key contextual aspects like behavioral traits (e.g., permanence, permissions), usage prerequisites, or expected outcomes. For a tool that modifies data, this leaves significant gaps for an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'id' clearly documented as 'Thread ID' and required. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or validation rules. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Delete') and resource ('a message thread'), making the tool's function immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'buddypress_get_message' and 'buddypress_list_messages' by specifying deletion rather than retrieval. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other deletion tools like 'buddypress_delete_activity' or 'buddypress_delete_friendship' beyond the resource name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing thread ID), exclusions, or relationships with sibling tools like 'buddypress_get_message' for verification before deletion. The description is purely functional without contextual usage advice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. While 'Delete' implies a destructive mutation, the description doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits such as whether deletion is permanent, requires specific permissions, affects related data, or provides confirmation. This leaves significant gaps for a destructive operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately scannable and appropriately sized for its simple function.
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 this is a destructive mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks essential context such as behavioral implications (e.g., irreversibility, side effects), success/failure responses, or error conditions, which are critical for safe tool invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'id' documented as 'Notification ID'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, but the schema adequately covers the parameter. With high coverage and only one parameter, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Delete') and resource ('a notification'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'buddypress_delete_activity' or 'buddypress_delete_message', but the resource specificity provides adequate clarity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing notification ID), when not to use it, or how it differs from related tools like 'buddypress_update_notification' or 'buddypress_list_notifications'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action but doesn't reveal if this is a toggle (favorite/unfavorite) or a set operation, what permissions are required, whether it's idempotent, or what the response looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every part of the sentence contributes essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's mutation nature (favoriting/unfavoriting), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like toggle vs. set, error conditions, or response format. For a tool that modifies data, more context is needed to use it effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'id' documented as 'Activity ID'. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this, such as format examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('favorite or unfavorite') and resource ('an activity item'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'buddypress_get_activity' or 'buddypress_update_activity' by focusing on favoriting rather than retrieval or modification. However, it doesn't specify if this toggles or sets a specific state, which slightly reduces specificity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing activity item), exclusions, or related tools like 'buddypress_get_activity' for checking status. Usage is implied by the action but lacks explicit context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but offers minimal information. It states this is a read operation ('Get'), implying it's non-destructive, but doesn't cover authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what happens if the ID doesn't exist. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that communicates the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool and front-loads the essential information. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for effective tool use. It doesn't explain what an 'activity item' contains, the return format, potential errors, or how this fits into broader workflows. For a tool with no structured metadata, the description should provide more contextual guidance.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'id' clearly documented as 'Activity ID'. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides (e.g., format examples, valid ranges, or relationship to other tools). The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate but minimal value addition.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('a single activity item by ID'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'buddypress_list_activities' by specifying retrieval of a single item rather than a list. However, it doesn't fully differentiate from other 'get' tools like 'buddypress_get_group' beyond the resource type.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to choose this over 'buddypress_list_activities' for multiple items or other 'get' tools for different resources. There's no context about prerequisites, error conditions, or typical use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action without behavioral details. It doesn't disclose if this is a read-only operation, what data is returned, error conditions, or permissions required, which are critical for a tool interacting with user data.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that retrieves user data. It doesn't explain what member details are returned, potential errors, or how it fits into the broader BuddyPress context, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds minimal semantics beyond the schema, which has 100% coverage and clearly describes the 'id' parameter as 'User ID'. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline is 3, and the description doesn't provide additional context like ID format or examples.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'a single member by ID', making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'buddypress_list_members' or 'buddypress_get_xprofile_data', which would require mentioning it retrieves individual member details rather than lists or related profile data.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention scenarios like needing detailed member info vs. lists, or prerequisites such as having a valid user ID, leaving the agent to infer usage from context alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states the action without behavioral details. It doesn't disclose if this is a read-only operation, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the return format includes (e.g., thread content, participants). This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., read-only nature, error handling) and output expectations, which are crucial for a tool that retrieves data. This makes it inadequate for full contextual understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the input schema, which has 100% coverage for the single parameter 'id' described as 'Thread ID'. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't need to compensate but also doesn't add value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('a single message thread'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'buddypress_list_messages' or 'buddypress_get_activity' beyond the resource type, missing explicit sibling distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a thread ID), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'buddypress_list_messages' for listing multiple threads.
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 full burden but only states the basic operation. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, authentication needs, error handling, rate limits, or what the returned data looks like, which are critical for a tool with no output schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It front-loads the core purpose clearly and appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and a simple input schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on return values, error cases, or behavioral context, making it inadequate for the agent to fully understand how to use this tool effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('field_id' and 'user_id'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying these are required for targeting, matching the baseline for high schema coverage without extra param details.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('XProfile data') with specific targeting ('for a specific user and field'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'buddypress_get_xprofile_field' or 'buddypress_update_xprofile_data' by focusing on data retrieval rather than field metadata or updates, though it doesn't explicitly contrast them.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or compare to siblings like 'buddypress_get_member' or 'buddypress_list_xprofile_fields', leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Get' which implies a read operation, but doesn't clarify if this requires authentication, what happens with invalid IDs (e.g., errors vs. null returns), rate limits, or the response format. For a read tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste—it directly states the tool's purpose without fluff or redundancy. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool and front-loaded with the core action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that retrieves data. It doesn't explain what an 'XProfile field' is (context from siblings suggests it's part of BuddyPress user profiles), what the return includes, or error handling. For a read operation with structured parameters, more context is needed to guide the agent effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters ('id' and 'fetch_field_data') clearly documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain what 'XProfile field' entails or how 'fetch_field_data' affects the output). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'a single XProfile field', which is specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'buddypress_list_xprofile_fields' (which lists multiple fields) and 'buddypress_get_xprofile_data' (which gets data values rather than field definitions). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings, so it's not a perfect 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to use it instead of 'buddypress_list_xprofile_fields' (for listing all fields) or 'buddypress_get_xprofile_data' (for field values), nor does it specify prerequisites like needing a valid field ID. This leaves the agent without contextual usage cues.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but provides minimal behavioral context. It implies a read-only operation through 'List' but doesn't explicitly state safety, permissions, rate limits, pagination behavior, or what happens with filters. The agent must infer behavior from the name and schema alone.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste—'List activity stream items with optional filters' directly conveys core functionality. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, though more detail could improve other dimensions.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool with 7 parameters and list functionality. It lacks details on return format, error handling, authentication, and behavioral traits, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to operate effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds marginal value by mentioning 'optional filters,' which hints at the filtering parameters but doesn't elaborate beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('activity stream items') with scope ('with optional filters'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'buddypress_get_activity' (singular) and 'buddypress_create_activity' (write operation), but doesn't explicitly mention pagination or differentiate from other list tools like 'buddypress_list_members' beyond the resource type.
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 is provided. It doesn't mention when to choose this over 'buddypress_get_activity' for single items or other list tools for different resources, nor does it specify prerequisites like authentication needs or context for filtering.
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 full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'List' implies a read operation, it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, what happens with invalid group IDs, whether results are paginated (though parameters suggest it), or the format of returned data. For a tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, this leaves significant 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and doesn't include unnecessary elaboration. Every word earns its place in conveying the essential function.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't address authentication requirements, error handling, response format, or how to interpret pagination results. While the schema covers parameter definitions, the behavioral context needed for effective tool invocation is largely missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain role filtering behavior or pagination defaults). This meets the baseline for high schema coverage where the description doesn't need to compensate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('List') and resource ('members of a specific group'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this tool from 'buddypress_list_members' by specifying group membership, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'buddypress_get_group' which might also return member information. The verb+resource combination is specific and accurate.
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 like 'buddypress_list_members' (all members) or 'buddypress_get_group' (which might include member data). There's no mention of prerequisites, error conditions, or comparison with sibling tools. The agent must infer usage from the name and parameters alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'optional filters' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as pagination defaults, rate limits, authentication needs, or what the output looks like (e.g., list format, error handling). For a read operation with 6 parameters, this leaves significant gaps in understanding tool behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('List BuddyPress groups') and adds essential scope ('with optional filters'). There is zero waste, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and 6 parameters, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., pagination behavior, error cases) and output format, which are critical for a list operation with filtering. The high schema coverage helps, but overall context is insufficient for effective tool use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with all 6 parameters well-documented in the schema (e.g., 'page' as page number, 'status' with allowed values). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by noting 'optional filters', but doesn't explain parameter interactions or provide additional context, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('BuddyPress groups') with scope ('with optional filters'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'buddypress_get_group' (singular) or 'buddypress_list_members', but the resource specificity is adequate.
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. With siblings like 'buddypress_get_group' (singular retrieval) and 'buddypress_list_group_members' (list members of a group), the description lacks context for selection, offering only basic functionality without exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a destructive mutation ('Remove'), but lacks details on permissions required, whether the action is reversible, effects on group membership, or error conditions. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool without annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste, front-loading the core action. It uses minimal words to convey the essential purpose without redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks critical context such as behavioral traits, return values, error handling, or usage guidelines, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, clearly documenting both parameters (group_id and user_id) as required numbers. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as format examples or constraints, but the schema adequately defines the inputs, meeting the baseline for high coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Remove') and target ('a member from a group'), providing specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'buddypress_add_group_member' by specifying removal rather than addition, though it doesn't explicitly mention all alternatives like 'buddypress_delete_member' which might serve different purposes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'buddypress_delete_member' or 'buddypress_update_member', nor does it mention prerequisites like permissions or context. The description only states what it does without indicating appropriate scenarios or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is an update operation, implying mutation, but doesn't mention permission requirements, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what happens to unspecified fields. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps that could lead to incorrect usage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without any wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and doesn't include unnecessary details. Every word earns its place, making it easy to parse quickly.
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 this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error conditions, or behavioral nuances. While the purpose is clear, the lack of context about permissions, side effects, or response format makes it inadequate for safe and effective use by an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters ('id' and 'content') clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., format examples, constraints, or relationships). According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Update') and resource ('an existing activity item'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'buddypress_create_activity' and 'buddypress_delete_activity' by specifying it's for updating existing items rather than creating or deleting them. However, it doesn't specify what aspects of the activity can be updated beyond the parameters.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing activity ID), compare with similar tools like 'buddypress_update_group' or 'buddypress_update_member', or indicate when not to use it (e.g., for creating new activities). The agent must infer usage from the name and parameters alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Update an existing group' implies a mutation operation, but it doesn't disclose permission requirements, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what happens to unspecified fields. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, with zero wasted content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the update operation returns, error conditions, or side effects. Given the complexity of updating a group and the lack of structured behavioral data, more context is needed for the agent to use this tool effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear parameter documentation (e.g., 'Group ID', 'Group status (public, private, hidden)'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without compensating value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Update') and resource ('an existing group'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from its sibling 'buddypress_update_activity' or 'buddypress_update_member', which follow the same 'update [resource]' pattern, so it doesn't fully distinguish from alternatives.
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 like 'buddypress_create_group' or 'buddypress_delete_group'. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing group ID) or contextual constraints, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Update member profile information' implies a mutation operation, but it doesn't specify required permissions, whether changes are reversible, error handling (e.g., invalid IDs), or response format. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral traits undocumented.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action ('Update member profile information'), making it immediately scannable. Every word earns its place by conveying the essential purpose without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on behavioral traits (e.g., permissions, side effects), usage context, and return values. While the schema covers parameters well, the overall context for safe and effective tool invocation is insufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for all parameters (e.g., 'User ID', 'Display name'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. According to the rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even without parameter info in the description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Update') and resource ('member profile information'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'buddypress_delete_member' or 'buddypress_get_member' by specifying an update operation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other update tools like 'buddypress_update_activity' or 'buddypress_update_group' beyond the resource type.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing member ID), exclusions (e.g., what fields cannot be updated), or comparisons to similar tools like 'buddypress_update_xprofile_data' for extended profile updates. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and schema alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Update' implying a mutation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether changes are reversible, error handling (e.g., invalid IDs), or side effects. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse. Every word contributes directly to the tool's purpose without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (mutation with 3 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like permissions, error cases, or return values, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to use it correctly in context with siblings.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear parameter names and types. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, only implying that 'field_id' and 'user_id' target specific entities and 'value' is the data to set. It doesn't explain parameter relationships, validation rules, or format details, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Update') and resource ('XProfile data') with specificity about targeting 'a specific user and field'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'buddypress_get_xprofile_data' (read vs. write) and 'buddypress_update_member' (different resource). However, it doesn't explicitly mention that XProfile refers to BuddyPress extended user profiles, which could help differentiate from other profile systems.
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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., existing field/user), when not to use it (e.g., for bulk updates), or direct alternatives like 'buddypress_update_member' for basic profile data. The description assumes context without explicit usage instructions.
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 full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states it's a read operation ('Get'), implying non-destructive behavior, but doesn't specify authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling (e.g., what happens if the ID doesn't exist), or return format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps unaddressed.
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 at just four words, front-loading the core purpose with zero wasted language. Every word earns its place: 'Get' specifies the action, 'a single group' specifies the resource and scope, and 'by ID' hints at the parameter. This is a model of efficiency for simple retrieval tools.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read operation with one fully documented parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks context about authentication, error handling, return structure, or differentiation from siblings. Without annotations or output schema, the agent must rely heavily on the tool name and parameter schema alone.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description mentions 'by ID' which aligns with the single 'id' parameter in the schema. With 100% schema description coverage (the schema fully documents the 'id' parameter as a required number), the description adds minimal value beyond what's already in the structured data. It doesn't provide additional context about ID format, validation, or examples.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('a single group by ID'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'buddypress_list_groups' by specifying retrieval of a single item rather than a list. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other 'get' tools like 'buddypress_get_activity' or 'buddypress_get_member' beyond the resource name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'buddypress_list_groups' for listing multiple groups or 'buddypress_get_member' for different resource types. There's no context about prerequisites, error conditions, or typical use cases, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states a read operation ('Get'), implying it's non-destructive, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, error handling, rate limits, or response format. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimal but adequate for a simple read tool. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on behavior, error cases, or output structure. For a tool with 2 parameters and 100% schema coverage, it meets minimum viability but could be more informative about operational context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for both parameters ('id' as field group ID, 'fetch_fields' to include fields). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('a single XProfile field group'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like 'buddypress_list_xprofile_groups' by specifying 'single' versus list operations. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'buddypress_get_xprofile_field', which targets individual fields rather than groups.
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 doesn't mention prerequisites, such as needing a valid group ID, or contrast it with 'buddypress_list_xprofile_groups' for browsing groups. Usage is implied by the name and description but not explicitly stated.
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 full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'List' implies a read-only operation, it doesn't explicitly state this or mention any side effects. There's no information about pagination behavior (beyond what's in the schema), rate limits, authentication requirements, or what the return format looks like. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the basic action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that communicates the core purpose immediately. Every word earns its place - 'List' (action), 'BuddyPress members' (resource), 'optional filters' (capability). There's no wasted verbiage or unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a list operation with 6 well-documented parameters but no output schema and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It identifies the tool as a list operation with filtering capabilities, which matches the parameter set. However, it doesn't address what the output looks like, pagination behavior, or how this differs from similar list operations among the siblings. The completeness is borderline for a read-only list tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 6 parameters thoroughly. The description mentions 'optional filters' which aligns with parameters like search, user_ids, member_type, and exclude, but doesn't add any meaningful semantic context beyond what the schema provides. With complete schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('BuddyPress members'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'buddypress_get_member' (singular) and 'buddypress_list_group_members' (group-specific), though it doesn't explicitly mention these distinctions. The mention of 'optional filters' adds useful scope information.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to choose 'buddypress_list_members' over 'buddypress_get_member' (for single member) or 'buddypress_list_group_members' (for members within a group). There's also no information about prerequisites, authentication requirements, or typical use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. While 'List' implies a read-only operation, it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, what format the output takes, if there are rate limits, or how 'active' components are defined. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that communicates the essential purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately scannable. Every word earns its place in this minimal yet complete statement.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is adequate but has clear gaps. It explains what the tool does but doesn't provide context about what 'components' means in BuddyPress, what the output format looks like, or how this fits within the broader ecosystem of sibling tools. For a list operation with many similar siblings, more contextual information would be helpful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (empty schema is fully described). The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for parameterless tools where the schema fully covers the absence of inputs.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('active BuddyPress components'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on components rather than activities, groups, members, or other entities. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with similar list tools like buddypress_list_activities or buddypress_list_groups, which would require more specific differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context for listing components, or how it differs from other list operations in the sibling set. With many sibling tools available, this lack of comparative guidance leaves the agent uncertain about appropriate usage scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

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:

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

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![buddypress-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/vapvarun/buddypress-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/vapvarun/buddypress-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/vapvarun/buddypress-mcp'

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