MCPacer
Server Quality Checklist
Latest release: v0.1.0
- Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have distinct purposes, but the activity retrieval set (get_activities, get_activities_by_date_range, get_recent_activities) overlaps, and get_run_context versus get_plan_context could cause confusion. Overall, the boundaries are clear for the majority.
Naming Consistency5/5All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., add_*, get_*, list_*, update_*, clear_*, save_*). No mixing of styles or inconsistent verbs.
Tool Count4/532 tools is on the higher side but still appropriate for the breadth of functionality (activities, plans, body regions, memory, session logs, digestion). Each tool serves a distinct purpose, and the count is manageable.
Completeness4/5The surface covers core coaching workflows: activity retrieval, plan CRUD, body diagram interaction, memory, session logs, and digestion. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no delete plan or remove comment tool), but the set is largely complete for the domain.
Average 4.1/5 across 32 of 32 tools scored. Lowest: 3.1/5.
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 is passing
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add
glama.jsonto the root of your repository:{ "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json", "maintainers": [ "your-github-username" ] }Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.
How to sync the server with GitHub?
Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.
To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.
How is the quality score calculated?
The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).
Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.
Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).
Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.
Tool Scores
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden of disclosing behavior. It states that the tool returns a dictionary with details, but does not explicitly confirm it is a read-only operation, mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or error scenarios (e.g., missing ID). The description is insufficient for an agent to fully understand behavioral traits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise with two lines and a structured Args/Returns format. However, there is slight redundancy between the opening sentence and the Returns line, both stating it retrieves activity details. Still, it is focused and front-loaded, using only necessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description provides the essential purpose and parameter meaning. However, it lacks details on error handling, expected return value structure (though output schema may cover that), and any prerequisites. It is minimally complete but could be more helpful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It clearly explains the parameter 'activity_id' as 'ID of the activity to retrieve', adding meaning beyond the schema's type and required flag. This semantic addition effectively helps the agent understand what to provide.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves detailed information for a specific activity. The name and description distinguish it from sibling tools like get_activities (which returns lists) and get_activity_description (which returns only the description). However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself, leaving some ambiguity about what 'detailed' means compared to other get tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_activities or get_activity_description. It does not specify that this tool is for fetching a single activity's full details as opposed to other partial or list-oriented tools, which would help an AI agent choose appropriately.
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 mentions basic functionality and return type. It lacks disclosure of side effects, auth needs, or any behavioral traits beyond the obvious.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and uses a clear docstring format with no wasted words. It front-loads the main purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema, the return description is adequate. However, the tool lacks differentiation from similar sibling tools, making it incomplete in context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the purpose and defaults of both parameters. However, it could include constraints like valid ranges.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Get activities from the past X days', specifying the verb, resource, and scope. However, it does not differentiate from siblings like 'get_activities' and 'get_activities_by_date_range'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 simply states its operation without context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It states it returns a confirmation message but does not mention that this is a destructive operation, error states, or any side effects like cascading deletions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise, with two sentences for purpose and args/returns. Every word adds value, and the purpose is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers basic usage. However, it omits error handling (e.g., if the workout doesn't exist) and any prerequisites, which are needed for complete guidance.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds minimal value: it explains plan_id as 'The plan ID', week_number as 'Which week', and day_of_week with an example. The schema titles already imply these, so the addition is marginal.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Remove a workout from a week' which is a specific verb+resource. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like add_plan_run and update_plan_run. However, it could explicitly mention the training plan context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 vs alternatives like update_plan_run. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., the run must exist) or exclude conditions.
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?
Lacking annotations, the description carries the full burden. It indicates a mutation ('Update') but does not disclose behavior on non-existent weeks, idempotency, permissions, or error conditions. The return value is vague ('Confirmation message').
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured with an Args section and example. Front-loaded with purpose, no redundant sentences.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the output schema exists, the return value is minimally described. However, missing behavioral details (e.g., partial vs full update, error handling) leave gaps for an agent to fully understand consequences.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema coverage, the description adds meaning for updates_json via an example but provides no extra details for plan_id or week_number beyond their names. The example is helpful but incomplete for all parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Update' and the resource 'week-level metadata', providing specific examples of fields. It differentiates from siblings like update_plan_run by focusing on week metadata, though it doesn't explicitly exclude run-level updates.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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. It does not specify prerequisites, conditions for use, or cases where another tool (e.g., update_plan_run) would be more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It states it retrieves 'recent activities' but does not define 'recent', nor does it mention what the output dictionary contains, any limitations, or whether it is a read-only operation. 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is highly concise: a single sentence plus brief args/returns in a docstring. Every part is functional with no redundant or filler content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has one optional parameter and an output schema exists, the description is adequate but lacks definition of 'recent' and does not explain the return value's structure beyond 'dictionary containing activities data'. It gets a baseline score; could be improved with more context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by documenting the 'limit' parameter with its meaning ('Maximum number of activities to return') and default value (10). This adds significant value beyond the schema's type and default alone.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Get' with the resource 'the authenticated athlete's recent activities', which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_activities_by_date_range or get_activity_by_id. The scope is precise and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or comparison to sibling tools like get_activities_by_date_range or get_recent_activities.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, but the description is transparent about its read-only nature and return structure. It does not disclose potential errors or data freshness, which is acceptable for a simple fetch.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences with no wasted words. The purpose is front-loaded ('Get the list').
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no parameters and an existing output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's behavior. Could mention ordering or caching, but it is complete for a simple list retrieval.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters exist, so the description is not burdened with parameter details. It adds value by describing the return format beyond the input schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves a list of coaching personas and specifies the return format. It is distinguishable from the sibling 'get_coaching_persona' (singular).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_coaching_persona'. There are no exclusions or usage notes.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. Description only mentions return of confirmation message but does not disclose side effects, authentication needs, or other behavioral traits 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.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is concise with a docstring-like structure (Args, Returns). Could be more structured but is not verbose. The Returns line is minimal.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of annotations and low schema coverage, the description covers basic operation but lacks details on error handling, prerequisites, or output format beyond 'Confirmation message'.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%. Description adds meaning by naming parameters (plan_id, week_number, run_json) and provides an example for run_json. Partially compensates for lack of schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states 'Add a new workout to a week.' Uses specific verb 'add' and resource 'workout to a week'. Distinguishes from sibling tools like remove_plan_run and update_plan_run.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Description implies usage for adding a run to a plan week but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. No mention of alternatives or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It only states the basic function without disclosing permissions, side effects, ordering, pagination, or any other behavioral traits beyond what is obvious from the name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a concise docstring with clear sections (Args, Returns). Every sentence is necessary and no words are wasted. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given an output schema exists, the description need not fully detail return values, but it only says 'Dictionary containing activities data,' which is vague. For a tool with 3 parameters and no nested objects, this is adequate but could provide more context about the results.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description's docstring explains each parameter: start_date and end_date in ISO YYYY-MM-DD format, and limit with default 30. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's empty descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Get activities within a specific date range,' which specifies the verb (get), resource (activities), and scope (date range). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_activities' (likely without date range) and 'get_activity_by_id'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_activities' or 'get_recent_activities.' The description implies usage for date range queries but provides no exclusions or context for decision-making.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description fully discloses behavior by stating it returns a dictionary with activity id, name, and description. The read-only nature is implied by 'get', and no side effects are mentioned, which is acceptable for a simple retrieval tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with three sentences covering purpose, parameter, and return value. No redundant information, and the structure is clear.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers basic functionality but is somewhat ambiguous: the phrase 'check for existing coaching feedback' may mislead if the description field is not coaching feedback. It lacks clarifications about edge cases (e.g., missing description) and does not contrast with sibling tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage and a single parameter, the description only says 'ID of the activity', which adds no meaning beyond the schema. It fails to clarify the ID format, source, or constraints, making it insufficient.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get', the resource 'activity's description', and the purpose 'to check for existing coaching feedback'. It is specific and distinguishes from siblings like get_activity_by_id and get_activities.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use (checking coaching feedback) but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention get_activity_by_id for full details or add_coaching_feedback for writing feedback.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose that the tool is read-only or idempotent, nor does it mention any constraints, ordering, or pagination. The return format is described but behavioral traits are missing.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences: the first states purpose, the second summarizes return structure. No fluff, efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity (no parameters, output schema exists), the description is complete. It states what is returned and the fields, which suffices for an agent to use the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are no parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not add parameter info because none exist. The schema coverage is 100% trivially.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'List', the resource 'saved training plans', and the scope 'all'. It distinguishes well from siblings like get_training_plan (singular) and add/update tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance is provided. The usage is implied by the tool's purpose, but there is no direct comparison to alternatives like get_training_plan for detailed info.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states that only specified fields are changed and everything else is preserved, which adds transparency. However, it does not mention potential side effects, reversibility, or any constraints beyond that.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and well-structured, with a clear opening sentence, a concise parameter list, and an example. Every piece of information is valuable and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the core functionality and parameter semantics, and notes the return type. It is adequate for a simple tool but lacks details on validation, error handling, or prerequisites. The presence of an output schema mitigates the need for extensive return value explanation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description fully compensates by explicitly listing and explaining all four parameters, including an example for updates_json. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema titles.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool modifies a single workout within a week, using specific verbs like 'modify' and 'Surgical edit'. It distinguishes itself from siblings such as add_plan_run, remove_plan_run, and update_plan_week by focusing on editing an existing run without affecting other fields.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_plan_week or add_plan_run. It lacks explicit context on prerequisites or scenarios where this tool is preferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses that it clears amber highlights and excludes athlete-painted regions, but lacks details on destructiveness, side effects, permissions, or state changes. With no annotations, more could be said.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences, front-loaded with core purpose. Every word adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with no params and output schema present, description covers what it does and what it doesn't touch. Could mention return type beyond 'Confirmation' but not critical.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters defined; schema coverage is 100% (empty). Baseline 4 for zero parameters; description adds no param info, which is acceptable.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the action (clear all amber highlights), the target (Body panel), and the scope (only agent-driven, not athlete-painted). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like highlight_body_regions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Implies use when needing to clear agent highlights without affecting athlete's work, but does not explicitly state when to use vs. alternatives or provide prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. Description states it returns the questionnaire as markdown, but does not explicitly confirm non-mutability or side effects. Mention of 'instructions for saving memory and drafting plan' is ambiguous about whether the tool performs those actions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single paragraph with clear front-loading of purpose and trigger. The 'Returns:' line is helpful. Could be more structured (bullet points) for readability.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter, read-only tool with output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, trigger, and return type. No major gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters in input schema. Baseline of 4 applies. Description does not need to add parameter meaning; it correctly focuses on the tool's outcome.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states 'Load the onboarding questionnaire for a new athlete.' Specific verb+resource. Distinguishes from siblings like get_training_plan or read_coach_memory by focusing on the onboarding process.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly says when to call: when read_coach_memory returns 'not been onboarded yet' or athlete section empty. Provides clear context but does not enumerate alternatives or when not to use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It states the tool returns raw YAML content as text, but does not disclose if it's read-only, any side effects, or authentication needs. For a simple retrieval tool, this is adequate but minimal. No contradictions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: three short sentences covering purpose, when to use, and return type. No wasted words, front-loaded with the main action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With output schema present, return value explanation is unnecessary. Description covers purpose, usage, and return type. Missing minor guidance on potential content size or plan_id format, but overall adequate for a simple get tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, yet the description only repeats 'The plan ID.' without adding format, example, or source guidance. This provides no additional meaning beyond the schema's title and type.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Get the full YAML content of a training plan.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and explicitly distinguishes from sibling tool get_plan_context by noting when to use it ('For the compact overview, use get_plan_context() instead.').
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly says when to use this tool ('when you need to inspect or edit individual workouts') and when not to, by suggesting the alternative get_plan_context for compact overview.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It indicates a read operation ('load... returns') but lacks explicit statement about being non-destructive or requiring authentication.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise (6 lines), front-loaded with purpose, and well-structured with dedicated sections for args and returns. Every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers core functionality and usage context. Could mention that it does not modify state.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The single parameter 'coach_name' is described with examples ('e.g. "david", "coach"') which adds value beyond the schema's title. Could be improved with more allowed values or constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses specific verb+resource ('Load a coaching persona's full definition and guidelines') and clearly distinguishes from sibling 'get_coaching_personas' by indicating it returns full definition for one persona.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description states when to use ('adopted fully for the duration of the session') but does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives beyond implying the plural variant.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries burden. Discloses return format as 'Formatted run detail as text.' Does not mention authentication, rate limits, or side effects, but likely read-only.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Very concise with a clear header, use case statement, and structured Args/Returns sections. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Has output schema, so return values are covered. Describes input, output format, and usage context. For a simple tool, this is complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema_description_coverage is 0% (no schema descriptions), but the description adds meaning: 'The Strava activity ID.' Single parameter clearly explained, compensating for schema gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states 'Get a detailed view of a single run' with specific data (lap splits, HR, elevation, digest, coach notes). Differentiates from siblings by emphasizing detailed post-race analysis.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides explicit use cases: 'post-race analysis, anomalies, or when the athlete asks about specific splits.' Lacks explicit exclusion criteria or alternatives, but context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden. It explains the expected digest format (compact line, | separated) and provides an example. It states returns a confirmation message. While it doesn't detail side effects or permissions, the simple read/write nature is well communicated.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is moderately sized, well-organized with a docstring-like structure. It includes a clear header, usage context, parameter list, return value, and an example. No unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (2 required params, no nesting, output schema exists), the description covers the workflow, parameter details, and output. It provides enough context for correct usage without being verbose.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, but the description adds meaning: activity_id is called a 'Strava activity ID' and digest format is detailed with an example. This compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool saves a digest for a run, with a specific context (generated by LLM or host). It distinguishes from siblings like add_run_note by specifying it's for the digest after get_pending_digests.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly says 'Called after processing a digestion prompt from get_pending_digests()', giving clear usage context. It does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, but the guidance is sufficient for the intended workflow.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses appending behavior, automatic wrapping, and return format. Missing details on error cases or idempotency, but main traits are clear.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Well-structured with clear paragraphs and bullet list. Front-loads main action, then provides important warnings. No superfluous content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Moderate complexity with 3 params and string manipulation. Covers constraints and return. Output schema exists, so return details not needed. Could mention error handling but overall adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, but description compensates by explaining activity_id, feedback (raw body), and coach_name with default. Adds meaning beyond schema, though missing constraints like max length.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it adds coaching feedback to a Strava activity description, appending to existing text. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_plan_comment or add_run_note.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly tells what not to include (prefix, emoji, signature) and warns about duplication. However, does not specify when to avoid this tool or provide direct alternatives among siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that comments persist through all future reads and exports, which is key behavioral info. It does not mention authorization or limits, but for a simple add operation, this is adequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise at about 6 lines, front-loaded with the action, and structured with an example, persistence note, and parameter list. Every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (3 params, output schema exists), the description covers purpose, usage, params, and behavioral impact. It mentions a confirmation message in returns, which suffices. It could mention comment length limits or idempotency, but overall it is complete enough.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description must add meaning. It does so by explaining each parameter: plan_id as 'The plan ID', week_number as 'Which week', and comment as 'The comment text (without # prefix)'. While plan_id's description is minimal, the others add value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Add' and the resource 'YAML comment to a week block', and provides an example. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'add_plan_run' which adds a run, and 'add_coaching_feedback' which adds feedback.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives context on when to use the tool: to document plan adjustments within the plan itself, with an example. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the context is clear enough.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, but description discloses key traits: notes persist across sessions and appear as 📝 in get_run_context output. For a simple write operation, this is sufficient transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Five well-organized sentences: purpose, persistence, usage example, parameter list, return value. Every sentence contributes value. Slightly verbose but acceptable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers all essential aspects: what it does, when to use, parameters, behavior, and output. Output schema exists so return value explanation is adequate. No gaps given the tool's simplicity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 0% description coverage, but the description defines both parameters: activity_id as 'The Strava activity ID' and note as 'The note text to append'. This adds necessary meaning beyond type/title.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Add' and resource 'coach note to a cached run', and distinguishes it from siblings like add_coaching_feedback and add_plan_run by specifying run context. It also explains persistence across sessions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly tells when to use: 'when the athlete shares context that changes interpretation of a run'. Lists examples. Doesn't explicitly state when not to use, but the guidance is clear and specific.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, description carries full burden. It discloses return type (dictionary indexed by stream type) but omits potential errors, side effects, or permissions. However, as a read operation, the transparency is adequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Concise docstring format with Args and Returns sections, no redundant information. Every sentence adds value, appropriate length for a simple tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite no annotations and output schema existing, description covers both parameters and return structure sufficiently for a low-complexity tool. No gaps in understanding usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so description must add meaning. It explains activity_id as ID, stream_types as comma-separated list with default and available types (heartrate, pace, etc.), adding significant value beyond schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states verb 'Get' and resource 'stream data for a specific activity' with examples. Distinguishes from siblings by specifying 'stream data' as opposed to activity metadata or lists.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Description implies usage for retrieving activity streams but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_activity_by_id or get_recent_activities. No exclusionary guidance provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explains the archiving process, that logs are auto-compressed, that this retrieves the full log, and that it returns a message if not found. This provides good behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured: first sentence states purpose, second paragraph gives context, third documents parameters and returns. It is slightly verbose but front-loaded and efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a single-parameter tool with an output schema, the description adequately explains the return value (full log text or not-found message) and the date format. No gaps remain.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The only parameter 'session_date' has no description in the schema (0% coverage). The description adds the required format (YYYY-MM-DD), going beyond the schema's type information, thus compensating for the lack of schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's action ('Retrieve a full session log from the archive by date'), identifies the resource, and distinguishes from sibling tools by explaining when one-liners are insufficient.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly says to use this tool when the compressed one-liner lacks context, providing clear guidance. However, it does not explicitly list when not to use it or mention specific alternatives beyond the implicit compressed logs.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses stable IDs, human-readable labels, and grouping by body area. No annotations provided, but description covers behavioral traits adequately for a read-only list tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three short paragraphs, front-loaded purpose, no wasted words. Well-structured and efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Describes return format (grouped list with IDs and labels). Output schema exists. Lacks mention of static/dynamic nature or prerequisites, but overall sufficient for its purpose.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters; schema coverage is 100%. Description adds no parameter info, but baseline is 4 for zero-parameter tools.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states it lists valid body region IDs for highlighting or painting, distinguishing it from siblings like highlight_body_regions and get_painted_regions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly advises using this tool to discover region IDs before calling highlight_body_regions, providing clear usage context. Could add exclusions for other use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses return format and that it's a read operation. No hidden behaviors.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three sentences, front-loaded: purpose, usage triggers, output. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Low complexity tool with no params; description fully covers purpose, usage, and return format. Output schema exists but description supplements it.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters; schema coverage 100%. Description adds no param info, but none needed. Baseline 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clear verb 'Read' and resource 'painted regions'. Distinguishes from siblings like 'highlight_body_regions' and 'clear_body_highlights'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly provides trigger phrases and proactive use case. No explicit when-not, but context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations, so description carries full burden. Discloses output format (two-line-per-week, highlighted current week) and edge case (no active plan). Could mention read-only nature explicitly but is clear from context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three sentences with no wasted words. Purpose is front-loaded: 'Get the active training plan rendered as compact text.' Each sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a no-parameter tool returning text, the description explains output format and edge case. Despite no output schema provided, description is sufficient for agent to understand return value.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters, schema coverage 100%. Description adds no parameter info as none needed. Baseline 4 for zero parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states the tool gets the active training plan rendered as compact text. Distinguishes from siblings like get_training_plan and list_training_plans by specifying format and active plan focus.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides context on when to use (display overview) and handles the no-active-plan case. Does not explicitly compare to alternatives but implies this is for current plan display.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses that the tool rewrites in-place and replaces everything under the ## header. No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Could mention what happens if section doesn't exist, but schema likely handles validation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Concise and well-structured: summary line, usage guideline, enumerated sections, parameter explanations. No wasted sentences.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Complete for a simple 2-parameter update tool. Explains purpose, when to use, section options, and parameter behavior. Output schema exists (though not shown), so return value description is sufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but description adds significant value: lists all allowed section values and explains that content replaces everything under the ## header. Compensates well for lack of schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clear verb 'update' with specific resource 'coach's memory' and file reference COACH_MEMORY.md. Distinguishes from sibling tools like read_coach_memory.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly states when to call ('immediately when significant new information emerges — don't wait until session end'). Does not explicitly state when not to use, but the context is clear enough.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavior. It clearly states it returns a dict with either a 'pending' list or a 'message' if nothing is pending. It implies a read-only operation (no side effects mentioned). However, it does not explicitly state idempotency, rate limits, or any potential blocking behavior, which is a minor gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two paragraphs, front-loading the purpose in the first sentence. It is informative without being verbose, but could be slightly more concise (e.g., merging the second paragraph into a single sentence). The structure is logical: purpose, output format, usage instructions.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given zero parameters and an output schema (context indicates output schema exists), the description provides sufficient detail about the return values and expected next steps. It is complete for an agent to understand what the tool returns and how to use the results.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are no parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds value by explaining the return format and structure of each item, which compensates for the lack of parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description starts with a clear verb and resource: 'Get runs that need LLM digestion, with pre-built prompts.' It also lists what each item contains (activity_id, name, date, prompt) and distinguishes from sibling tools like save_run_digest by mentioning it as the next step.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly states when to use this tool (to get runs needing digestion) and what to do afterwards (process items and save via save_run_digest). It even suggests best practice (spawning parallel Haiku subagents). No alternative tools are named, but the usage context is fully specified.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses the sync step, the age-tiered output, and the scope (actual run data only). Lacks details on permissions or potential side effects, but sufficient for a zero-parameter tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Concise at ~8 lines, front-loaded with purpose, uses bullet points for steps. Could trim redundancy (e.g., 'Returns' line may be redundant with later sentence).
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no parameters and the presence of an output schema, the description fully explains the tool's purpose, steps, and relationship to siblings. No gaps for a zero-parameter tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters exist, schema coverage is 100%. The description adds value by explaining input constraints (none) and output format, beyond the trivial schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly identifies the tool as syncing Strava activities and returning a training overview, with explicit distinction from get_plan_context() for plan awareness.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly states it's the primary tool for session start to load training history, and directs to use get_plan_context() for plan data (when not to use).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Despite no annotations, the description reveals it returns concatenated text, most recent first, and implies read-only behavior. It adds value by describing the output format and ordering beyond the schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with three clear sections: purpose, Args, Returns. Every sentence adds value and is front-loaded with the primary action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read tool with one parameter, the description covers what logs contain, how they are returned (text, ordered), and the parameter's behavior. The presence of an output schema further reduces the burden.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds crucial meaning to the 'limit' parameter: 'Number of recent logs to return (default 3, max 5).' Since schema description coverage is 0%, this fully compensates by providing the purpose and bounds.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Read recent daily session logs — summaries of previous coaching conversations,' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_archived_session_log by focusing on recent logs.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It provides context 'Provides conversation continuity,' implying when to use. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives like get_archived_session_log for older logs.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explains that the tool reads a file and returns markdown text, outlining the sections. No mention of performance or side effects, but for a straightforward read operation, this is adequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with three short sentences. The main action is front-loaded, and every sentence adds necessary context without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given zero parameters and an output schema present, the description adequately explains what the tool does and what it returns. The mention of sections and markdown format provides sufficient completeness for a simple read tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds value by specifying the content structure ('Contains sections: Athlete, PRs, Goals...') and the return format ('full coach memory as markdown text'), which goes beyond the empty schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Read the full COACH_MEMORY.md'), the resource ('the coach's long-term knowledge about the athlete'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_coach_memory by focusing on reading.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives usage context ('loaded at session start and can be re-read on demand'), implying when to use it. It lacks explicit exclusion or alternative guidance, but the purpose is clear enough given sibling tool names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Describes write operation and return confirmation. No annotations, so description covers behavioral aspects adequately. Lacks details on idempotency or overwrite behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Concise, well-structured with purpose, usage, and parameter details. No redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Simple tool with two parameters and output schema; description covers purpose, usage, parameters, and return value adequately.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully explains both parameters: summary format (3-5 lines, key takeaway first) and coach_name (purpose and default).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clear verb 'save', resource 'session summary log', and context 'for today' at end of coaching session. Distinct from sibling read tools like get_session_logs.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Specifies when to call ('at end of coaching session') and format requirements (3-5 lines, first-line takeaway). Does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when not to use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses that highlighting replaces previous set, invalid IDs are silently dropped, and returns confirmation. No annotations needed as description covers all relevant behaviors.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Every sentence adds value. Front-loaded purpose and behavior, then parameters. No fluff, well-organized.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given simple tool with two parameters and output schema, description covers purpose, usage, behavior, parameter details, and return value. References sibling tools appropriately.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema coverage, description fully explains both parameters: regions (list of IDs, discovery via list_body_regions, invalid IDs dropped) and reason (caption shown to athlete). Adds meaning beyond schema defaults and types.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states it highlights body regions in the dashboard's Body panel, with specific use cases and distinction from siblings like clear_body_highlights and list_body_regions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly describes when to use (draw attention, suggest pain source, visualize kinematic chain) and how to clear (empty list or sibling tool). No ambiguity.
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:
Score Badge
Copy to your README.md:
Latest Blog Posts
- Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)By Om-Shree-0709 on .mcpAgent IdentityOAuth 2.1
- Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an InternBy Om-Shree-0709 on .Agent IdentityMCP SecurityOAuth Delegation
- Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)By Om-Shree-0709 on .Agentic AiPrompt InjectionWebAssembly
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/wernerpe/mcpacer'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server