Wave OS MCP Server

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v1.4.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose, with well-defined boundaries between Base44 CRUD, Theta blockchain/GPU, and Wave OS assistant features. The only potential confusion between 'wave' (chat forwarding) and 'wave_send_message' (notification sending) is resolved by their detailed descriptions.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern, with prefixes (base44 implicit, theta_, wave_) grouping related tools. No mixing of styles or ambiguous verbs.
Tool Count3/5
With 28 tools, the count is above the typical well-scoped range of 3-15. While the tools are organized into clear domains, the server attempts to cover Base44, Theta, and Wave OS, resulting in a slightly heavy but still manageable set.
Completeness4/5
The tool surface covers core CRUD for Base44, common Theta operations (deploy, read, balance, transaction), and comprehensive Wave OS assistant features. Minor gaps exist, such as no entity schema update/delete and no file download, but these are not critical for the intended workflows.
Average 3.1/5 across 25 of 28 tools scored. Lowest: 1.8/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 33 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

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds no behavioral details beyond the tool's name; no disclosure of side effects, prerequisites, or data source.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While brief, the description lacks essential information, making it insufficient rather than concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (2 parameters, no schema coverage, no output schema), the description provides virtually no guidance, making it impossible for an agent to select and invoke appropriately.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema coverage, the description fails to add any meaning to the parameters; an agent would not know what values to provide.
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 states a general purpose but lacks specificity about what 'preparation context' means, and does not differentiate from similar tools like wave_morning_briefing.
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 context for when this tool should be used, nor does it mention alternatives or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention if the tool is read-only, modifies data, returns results, or requires specific permissions. The description lacks any transparency about side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise but lacks necessary details. It is front-loaded but not sufficiently informative; every sentence should earn its place, but this one fails to provide enough value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has only one required parameter and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain what the tool returns, how it behaves, or any practical usage context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the only parameter 'workspace_id'. It adds no meaning beyond the basic schema, leaving the parameter's purpose and usage completely unexplained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description specifies the verb 'scan' and resource 'tasks with natural language due dates', which clarifies its function. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_entities or wave_triage, though 'scan' is a bit ambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidelines are given; it does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives like wave_triage or wave_check_messages. The description only implicitly suggests usage for scanning tasks with natural language due dates.
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, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the tool is read-only, destructive, requires authentication, or has side effects. This is a critical gap for a tool performing a 'scan'.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The single-sentence description is concise, but it lacks important details that could be added without significantly increasing length. It does not fully earn its place as it omits parameter and behavioral context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 2 parameters and no output schema, the description should clarify the scan's scope, output, and parameter semantics. It fails to do so, leaving significant ambiguity about the tool's behavior and usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has two parameters (workspace_id and proactivity_level) with 0% description coverage. The description does not explain their meaning, usage, or impact, forcing the agent to infer from names and enums alone. This is insufficient.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear action ('Run a triage scan') and resource ('urgent items across Wave OS entities'), making the purpose understandable. However, it does not differentiate this tool from similar siblings like wave_follow_up_scan or wave_morning_briefing.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It only mentions background execution, omitting critical details like async behavior, return value, error handling, or required permissions. The agent cannot infer the post-invocation experience.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence (12 words), but it sacrifices essential details for brevity. While front-loaded, it fails to earn its place by adding value beyond the tool name.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is grossly incomplete. It omits parameter guidance, usage context, and behavioral outcomes, making it unfit for reliable agent use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 3 parameters with 0% description coverage, but the tool description adds no meaning to 'task', 'context', or 'workspace_id'. The agent has no clue what values to provide, severely limiting correct invocation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool delegates a task to a Wave OS sub-agent for background execution, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'wave' (synchronous) and other wave tools by emphasizing background execution and sub-agent delegation.
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 'wave' or 'wave_triage'. The description lacks context for choosing this tool over siblings, failing to indicate prerequisites 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 fully disclose behavior, but it only says 'Create a new entity schema' without mentioning side effects, permissions, or the schema structure expected.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise, but it omits crucial details needed for correct usage, making it under-specified rather than appropriately compact.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of annotations, output schema, and parameter descriptions, the description fails to provide sufficient context for an agent to use the tool correctly, leaving many ambiguities about the schema parameter and expected behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the input schema lacks descriptions for entity_name and schema. The tool description does not explain these parameters or their format, failing to add value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Create' and the resource 'entity schema' on the 'Base44 backend', which is distinct from sibling tools that deal with records, functions, or Wave services.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_entities or create_records, nor any prerequisites 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. It only states 'Read-only,' implying no state change, but lacks details on gas costs, authentication needs, or error behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (one sentence), which is efficient, but at the expense of essential details. It is front-loaded but insufficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description lacks return value format, error conditions, and usage examples, making it inadequate for agent invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any parameter beyond their names. For example, 'params' is an array of strings but its purpose is unclear.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Call') and resource ('view function on a deployed Theta smart contract'), and distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly noting it's read-only, which differentiates it from deployment or state-modifying 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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'call_function' or 'theta_get_balance'. The phrase 'Read-only' hints at appropriate contexts but offers no exclusions or comparisons.
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. The description implies a read operation ('get') but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as required permissions, side effects, or response format. The tool likely requires workspace context, but this is not specified.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no redundancy. However, it may be too lean to be useful, but conciseness itself is good.
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 output schema, parameter descriptions, and annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not clarify what the briefing contains or how the inputs influence the output, 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.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning to the parameters. It does not explain the purpose of workspace_id or how proactivity_level affects the briefing. The agent must infer entirely from parameter names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves an aggregated morning briefing from the Wave OS Chief of Staff. It specifies a verb and resource, though it does not distinguish from sibling tools like wave_triage or wave_meeting_prep.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as wave_triage or wave_recall_memory. The description lacks context for appropriate usage scenarios.
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 fully disclose behavior. It only mentions a directory restriction, omitting critical details like overwrite behavior, successful upload confirmation, error handling, or whether the operation is synchronous.
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 short and to the point with no superfluous text. However, it lacks depth, making brevity a weakness rather than a strength.
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?
Despite having only one parameter and no output schema, the description is far too sparse. It fails to cover required context such as return values, error states, or prerequisites for file upload.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the 'file_path' parameter beyond its name. The intended format, allowed values, or relationship to the 'allowed directory' is unspecified.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Upload' and the resource 'file to Base44 storage', making the purpose unambiguous. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like create_entity and read_records.
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. The mention of 'Restricted to allowed directory' implies a constraint but does not help the agent decide between upload_file and other tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions creating a notification but does not specify idempotency, authentication requirements, or potential side effects like overwriting previous messages.
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 three sentences covering action, effect, and context. No fluff or 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 tool with 4 parameters (2 required), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It lacks parameter details, return value hints, and behavioral constraints, making it incomplete for confident usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is only 25% (only source has a description). The description adds no information about parameters such as title, message, or workspace_id, leaving their semantics ambiguous.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool sends a message from Cursor to Wave OS and creates a notification, distinguishing it from sibling tools like wave_check_messages. However, it could be more precise about the unidirectional nature (sending only) despite mentioning 'bidirectional'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like wave_check_messages or other wave tools. The description implies usage for sending notifications but does not provide context for when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description bears full burden. It only mentions the mechanism (HTTP) but fails to disclose side effects, auth needs, error behavior, or idempotency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no wasted words. However, it is too brief and could benefit from more structure.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not cover return values, error cases, or HTTP specifics like status codes.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%. The description adds no meaning to the three parameters. For example, 'function_name' is required but not described; 'method' enum is not explained; 'payload' object lacks any context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action 'Call' and the resource 'deployed Base44 backend function via HTTP'. It is specific and distinct from sibling tools like CRUD operations or Wave/Theta functions.
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 does not mention prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states 'Read records', implying read-only, but does not disclose pagination limits, sorting behavior, error handling, or authorization requirements.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence, front-loading the core purpose. However, it could include more detail without being overly verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It omits return format, pagination defaults, and required permissions, making it insufficient for an agent to fully understand usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no explanation for parameters like skip, sort, limit, query, fields, and entity_name. The schema lacks descriptions, leaving the agent with no semantic guidance for parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Read', the resource 'records from a Base44 entity', and mentions capabilities like filtering, sorting, and pagination, distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_entities and create_records.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as aggregate_records or list_entities. The description implies use for record retrieval with sorting/filtering but lacks exclusions or context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Lists blocked stages ($out, $merge, $lookup, $facet), implying read-only behavior but no explicit statement. Lacks details on side effects, auth, or output format.
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?
Efficient one-sentence description with key constraint (blocked stages). Could be slightly more structured but is front-loaded.
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?
Incomplete for a data query tool: no info on return format, error handling, or parameter details. Missing details that would help an agent use it confidently.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage 0% and description adds no meaning beyond parameter names. Does not explain 'entity_name' or format of 'pipeline'.
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?
Clearly states it runs a MongoDB aggregation pipeline, including blocked stages. Could better differentiate from read_records for simple queries.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like read_records. Only lists blocked stages, which is more behavioral than usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only states the action (create) but does not disclose behavioral traits like error handling, idempotency, return format, or side effects. The phrase 'one or more' is a minor behavioral hint but insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no fluff. However, it could be more informative without becoming verbose. It is adequate but not optimally structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite the tool's simplicity, the description lacks information about return values, error states, or batch behavior. For a creation tool, an AI agent would need to know what response to expect (e.g., created record IDs). This gap makes the description incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate. It adds 'one or more records' but does not explain what 'data' should contain or how 'entity_name' is used. No additional meaning beyond the schema structure is provided.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Create' and the resource 'one or more records in a Base44 entity', distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_entities, read_records, update_records, and delete_records. This is specific and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as create_entity or read_records. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or conditions for invoking this tool.
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 mutation, but does not disclose side effects, authentication needs, atomicity, or behavior on no matches. Insufficient 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 two sentences long with no fluff. Every sentence adds necessary information about the tool's function and a key constraint.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and requires handling nested objects, the description is severely incomplete. It omits return values, error handling, and usage patterns like parameter structures.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% and the description only mentions 'query' as non-empty. It provides no explanation for 'entity_name' or 'data' fields, which are objects. The description adds no value over the raw schema names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (update records) and the condition (matching a query filter). It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_records, delete_records, and read_records by specifying the update operation with a filter.
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 only a prerequisite (non-empty query) but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions or context for selecting this tool over, e.g., create_records or delete_records.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'search' but omits details like read-only nature, result format, pagination, or auth requirements.
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?
Single sentence, no fluff. Front-loaded with action and resource. Could benefit from structure like listing parameters, but remains 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?
Incomplete for a tool with 3 parameters and no output schema. Lacks explanation of return values, scope of 'memories', and behavior when no results.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema coverage, description adds some meaning by mapping 'keyword' to query and 'category' to the enum parameter. However, it doesn't explain workspace_id or parameter constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: searching memories by keyword or category. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_entities which likely list all entities without filtering, but does not explicitly differentiate.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage 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 (e.g., list_entities, read_records). Missing context about required workspace_id or limitations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states only the deletion action but does not mention whether deletion is permanent, if there is any confirmation, batching behavior, or result feedback. This leaves significant transparency 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.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise (two sentences) with no wasted words. However, given the lack of schema descriptions and transparency, it could be restructured to include more critical information without increasing length significantly.
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?
Considering no output schema, no annotations, and a complex parameter (query object), the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, error conditions, or the impact of the operation (e.g., all matching records deleted). Significant gaps remain.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only mentions 'query filter' but does not explain the entity_name parameter or the format/fields of the query object. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema types.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (delete) and resource (records) with the specific mechanism (query filter). It distinguishes from sibling tools like read_records, create_records, update_records, and aggregate_records by its unique purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions the requirement for a non-empty query, implying when it can be used, but does not provide guidance on when to use delete vs. alternatives like update_records or when not to use it. No exclusions or alternative tools are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states 'Check running...' without detailing whether it is read-only, what happens if no instances exist, or any authentication requirements. The behavior is inferred but not explicitly stated.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, making it immediately comprehensible.
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 output schema and no annotations, the description should provide more context about the return value (e.g., list of instance IDs, status details). It currently lacks this information, making it incomplete for a tool with zero parameters and no output schema.
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 input schema has zero parameters, so schema coverage is complete (100%). Per guidelines, the baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description does not need to elaborate on parameters.
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 'Check' and the resource 'Theta EdgeCloud GPU instances', effectively communicating the tool's purpose. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like theta_list_models or theta_estimate_cost by focusing on GPU instance status.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as theta_check_credentials or theta_list_models. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description declares 'Read-only', which is a key behavioral trait indicating no side effects. However, it does not elaborate on potential error conditions (e.g., invalid wallet address), rate limits, or what happens if the token_contract parameter is omitted. Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden.
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 (two sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word appears necessary, but a small addition about the token_contract parameter could improve completeness without much bloat.
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 output schema and low schema coverage, the description should provide more context. It fails to explain return format (e.g., does it return both balances? in what units?), error behavior, or default behavior when token_contract is omitted. This limits an agent's ability to correctly interpret results.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It explains the resource (wallet for TFUEL and WAVE tokens) but does not clarify the role of the optional token_contract parameter—whether it filters to a specific token contract, or what format it expects. The required wallet_address is self-explanatory from its name.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states 'Get TFUEL and WAVE token balance for a wallet', which is specific about the action (get balance) and resource (wallet for two token types). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like theta_get_transaction which deals with transaction details.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or situations where other tools might be more appropriate (e.g., checking a different token).
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 declares read-only behavior, which is sufficient. However, lacks details on potential error conditions, authentication requirements, or network specificity (e.g., which chain).
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?
Two short sentences, no redundant information. However, could be more front-loaded with the single parameter note.
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 output schema and simple structure, the description provides basics but misses return value expectations (e.g., what fields are in transaction details). Adequate for a straightforward fetch.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%; the description does not elaborate on 'tx_hash' format, length, or examples. An agent might need to guess whether it's a hex string with 0x prefix or a hash length.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states verb 'Fetch' and resource 'transaction details by hash'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'theta_read_contract' and 'theta_get_balance' which operate on different resources. The 'Read-only' qualifier reinforces its purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs siblings, but the purpose is self-evident given the unique resource (transaction hash). A brief note about not using for contract data would elevate it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states that the key is encrypted with AES-256-GCM at rest, which is a useful security detail. However, it does not mention whether the key is validated, whether existing keys are overwritten, or any side effects. The transparency is partial.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is three sentences long, uses clear language, and front-loads the action. Every sentence adds valuable information: what it does, why it bypasses credits, and a security detail. No redundant or filler words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is a configuration action with two parameters and no output schema. The description covers the core purpose and a key behavioral trait (encryption), but misses parameter explanations and usage guidelines. It is adequate but not thorough, leaving gaps that could confuse an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema includes two required parameters (api_key, project_id) with no descriptions. The tool description also provides no explanation of these parameters, their formats, or how to obtain them. With 0% schema description coverage and no param info in the description, the agent has zero guidance on what to provide.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: to save a Theta EdgeCloud API key (BYOK). The verb 'save' and noun 'API key' make the action and resource explicit. It distinguishes from sibling tools like theta_check_credentials and theta_list_models, which serve different roles.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions 'Bypasses Wave OS credits — you pay Theta directly,' which gives context for when to use this tool (to use own credits instead of Wave credits). However, it provides no information on prerequisites, when not to use it, or alternatives. The guidance is minimal but not absent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose side effects. It does not mention that by default (mark_read=true) the tool marks messages as read, making it a state-modifying operation. This omission hides a key behavioral trait.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences—short and focused. The first sentence defines the action, the second specifies the return value. Every word adds value without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description states the return type but not its structure (no output schema). It omits the default marking behavior and prerequisites. For a tool with two parameters, it is partially complete but has notable gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 50% (only mark_read has a description). The tool description adds no explanation for workspace_id or further context for mark_read beyond the schema. It fails to compensate for the missing parameter documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool checks for unread messages from Wave OS, specifying they are notifications for Cursor and of type 'cursor_message'. This verb+resource combination is distinct from sibling tools like wave_send_message.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for picking up pending notifications but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., wave_morning_briefing). No exclusions or context for selection are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the basic operation, omitting details like auth needs, rate limits, or that it is safe and 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, efficiently front-loading the key information without any extraneous content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a parameterless list tool, the description is adequate. It could mention the output format, but overall it sufficiently defines the tool's purpose.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has zero parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description doesn't need to add parameter info, and it correctly describes the operation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description specifies the action 'list' and the resource 'entity schemas' within 'Base44 app', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'create_entity' or 'read_records'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any conditions or exclusions. The agent receives no context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions the output (masked key, routing mode, billing info) and the action is clearly a read operation. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is safe or non-destructive, nor does it mention authentication needs or rate limits, leaving 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, well-structured sentence that immediately states the action and then lists what information is shown. There is no redundancy or unnecessary text, making it highly concise.
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 parameterless check tool, the description provides the core purpose and output. However, the absence of annotations means the agent must infer safety and side effects. The description does not address whether this operation requires any prior setup or authentication, which could be misleading if the tool fails without context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the schema fully covers all inputs. The description adds no parameter details, but baseline is 4 per instructions. It does confirm the tool takes no parameters and adds context about the output, which is slightly helpful.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it checks 'Theta credential mode and compute routing' with a specific verb 'Check'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like theta_check_gpu_status, which focus on hardware, and other theta tools that manage or estimate costs.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the description.
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?
Clearly states 'pure calculation, no API calls' indicating no side effects or external dependencies. With no annotations provided, this description effectively communicates the tool's safe, read-only 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?
Single sentence front-loading purpose and key behavioral trait. Every word adds value, no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite low complexity, the description omits parameter details and any mention of return values. For a cost estimation tool, users need to know what the output is (e.g., a number in TFUEL) to use it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but description adds no explanation for 'model' or 'duration_minutes'. These parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the tool's utility hinges on knowing valid model values, which is absent.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the tool estimates TFUEL cost for a GPU job, with a specific verb ('estimate') and resource ('cost'). It is distinct from all sibling tools, none of which do cost estimation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The phrase 'pure calculation, no API calls' implies safety and speed, but does not give context like 'use before submitting a job' or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that deployment is irreversible and requires a specific environment variable. This adds significant behavioral context beyond the basic action, though it could mention potential side effects or gas costs.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with two sentences: the first states the action, the second provides critical warnings. No unnecessary words, and the important information is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of deploying a contract and the absence of an output schema, the description adequately covers purpose and key warnings. However, it lacks parameter explanations and does not address optional parameters or expected outcomes, leaving gaps for an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage and no parameter descriptions. The tool description does not explain what 'bytecode', 'abi', or 'constructor_args' represent, relying on developer knowledge. This is a notable gap in helping the agent understand parameter purposes.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Deploy' and resource 'smart contract to Theta mainnet', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like theta_read_contract and theta_get_balance. It is specific and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions a prerequisite (THETA_ALLOW_WRITES=true) and a consequence (irreversible), but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. The usage context is implied but not fully elaborated.
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 discloses that the token is encrypted with AES-256-GCM at rest and that compute is routed through the backend. However, it does not specify whether the token is stored, what happens on disconnect, or any side effects of the 'connect' action beyond saving the token.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is three concise sentences with the primary purpose stated first. Every sentence adds value (purpose, routing detail, token source and security), with no redundant or extraneous 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?
With no output schema and three required parameters, the description lacks details on expected return values or success/failure indicators. It does not explain what happens after a successful 'connect' (e.g., whether a session is established or a connection ID is returned), which is necessary for an agent to orchestrate subsequent actions.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the description adds limited value. It reinforces the token source and mentions encryption, but does not add new semantic meaning beyond what the parameter descriptions already provide (e.g., action enum values are fully described in the schema).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: to connect to Wave OS using an auth token and route Theta compute through the Wave OS backend. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on authentication and backend routing, not on data manipulation or subagent delegation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear guidance on where to get the auth token (oswave.io/settings/developer) and notes that the connection is credit-gated and does not require a raw API key. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like theta_configure or theta_check_credentials.
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 the full burden. It clearly indicates a read-only list operation with no destructive side effects. However, it does not mention authentication or rate limits, which are minor omissions for a simple 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that is well-front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words or details. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is complete enough. It states the tool's purpose clearly. It could optionally mention the format or categories of models, but not essential.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are no parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter information, but none is needed. Baseline for zero parameters is 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action 'List' and the resource 'available AI models on Theta EdgeCloud'. It is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_entities' or other Theta tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It is implied that it is for listing Theta models, but no exclusions or context are given.
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?
No annotations provided, but the description fully discloses behavior: it is a chat tool that sends messages to another AI and returns the response. Explicitly states what it does not do (create anything).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Well-structured and front-loaded with purpose, but slightly verbose. Every sentence is useful, yet some could be combined for brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity of one required parameter and no output schema, the description is fully complete. It covers what, when, how, and what not to do.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Adds meaning beyond the input schema by specifying the message must be verbatim, everything after '@wave', and not to modify it. The schema only describes it as a string.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it is a chat tool for sending a message to the Wave OS AI Assistant, distinguishing it from other tools by emphasizing it does not create anything.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides explicit instructions: call immediately when '@wave' is typed, forward verbatim, and includes an example. Also warns against searching for other tools or planning.
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:

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

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

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

Latest Blog Posts

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

MCP directory API

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

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

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