anilist-mcp

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have distinct purposes targeting specific resources like anime, manga, characters, or user actions, with clear boundaries. However, some overlap exists between 'get_user_activity' and 'get_user_recent_activity', which could cause minor confusion about their exact scope.
Naming Consistency5/5
Tool names follow a highly consistent verb_noun pattern throughout, such as 'get_anime', 'search_character', and 'update_list_entry'. All tools use snake_case uniformly, making them predictable and easy to parse.
Tool Count2/5
With 44 tools, the count is excessive for an AniList API server, leading to potential cognitive overload and redundancy. A more focused set of 10-20 tools could cover the same domain without overwhelming users or agents.
Completeness5/5
The tool set provides comprehensive coverage of the AniList domain, including CRUD operations for lists, favorites, and user activities, along with extensive search and retrieval functions for media, characters, staff, and more. No obvious gaps are present for core workflows.
Average 3/5 across 44 of 44 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- 1 of 2 community issues answered or closed in the last 6 months
- 1 commit in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on November 28, 2025
- 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.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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Get recent activity' but doesn't clarify whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions might be needed, how 'recent' is defined (e.g., time range, pagination), or what the output format looks like. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely returns user data.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, straightforward sentence with no wasted words, making it appropriately concise. However, it's front-loaded but lacks depth, as it could benefit from more context to improve usability without sacrificing brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of fetching user activity data, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'recent activity' includes, how results are structured, or any limitations (e.g., rate limits, authentication needs), leaving the agent under-informed for effective tool invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the 'user' parameter clearly documented as 'The user's AniList ID (Number ID only, DO NOT use username, any kind of string or other types except for numbers.)'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get recent activity from a user' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('recent activity from a user'), making the purpose understandable. However, it's vague about what 'recent activity' entails (e.g., posts, updates, interactions) and doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like 'get_activity' or 'get_user_activity', which could cause confusion.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'get_activity' and 'get_user_activity' present, the description lacks any indication of differences in scope, context, or prerequisites, leaving the agent to guess based on tool names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While '[Requires Login]' indicates authentication requirements, the description doesn't address whether this is a destructive operation, what permissions are needed, whether changes are reversible, what happens to unspecified settings, or what the response looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at just two phrases: '[Requires Login] Update user settings'. It's front-loaded with the authentication requirement and states the core purpose efficiently. There's no wasted language, though it could be argued it's too brief given the tool's complexity.
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 complex mutation tool with 1 parameter containing 13 required nested properties, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what happens when the tool is invoked, what success/failure looks like, or provide any context about the extensive settings being modified. The description fails to compensate for the lack of structured metadata about this significant operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with detailed descriptions for all parameters and nested objects. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the schema. According to the scoring guidelines, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no parameter information in the description, which applies here.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool's purpose as 'Update user settings', which is a clear verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_list_entry' or specify what kind of user settings are updated beyond the generic term. The description is adequate but lacks specificity about the scope of settings being modified.
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 includes '[Requires Login]' which provides some context about prerequisites, but offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of when this tool should be used instead of other update tools like 'update_list_entry', nor any indication of what constitutes appropriate user settings updates versus other operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states the action without behavioral details. It doesn't disclose if this is a read-only operation, requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or affects data. For a search tool with complex parameters, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for a tool where detailed context is deferred to the schema, making it highly concise and well-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?
For a search tool with 4 parameters, nested objects, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks behavioral context, usage guidelines, and output details, failing to compensate for the absence of structured metadata, which could hinder effective tool selection.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying search functionality, which is already clear from the tool name. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter semantics adequately.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Search for activities on AniList' states the basic purpose (verb+resource) but is vague about what 'activities' entail compared to siblings like 'get_activity' or 'get_user_activity'. It doesn't specify scope (e.g., global vs user-specific) or differentiate from similar tools, leaving ambiguity.
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 'get_activity' (which might fetch a single activity) or 'get_user_activity' (user-specific). The description lacks context about prerequisites, exclusions, or recommended scenarios, offering minimal usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions authentication requirement ('[Requires Login]') which is helpful, but doesn't describe what happens when adding an entry - whether it creates a new record, what the response looks like, potential side effects, or error conditions. For a mutation tool with complex parameters, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise - just one sentence with a bracketed prerequisite. It's front-loaded with the authentication requirement and states the core purpose efficiently. Every word serves a purpose with no wasted text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with 2 complex parameters (including a nested object with 16 required properties), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how to interpret results, or provide context about the list system. The authentication note is helpful but insufficient for the tool's complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents both parameters and their nested properties. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, but since the schema is comprehensive, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Add an entry') and target ('to the authorized user's list'), which is specific and actionable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'update_list_entry' or 'remove_list_entry', which handle similar list operations but with different verbs.
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 includes '[Requires Login]' which provides basic authentication context, but offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update_list_entry' or 'remove_list_entry'. There's no mention of prerequisites beyond login or comparison with sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the login requirement, which is useful, but fails to describe critical traits such as whether the deletion is permanent, if it affects associated data (e.g., comments), rate limits, or error conditions. For a destructive operation, this lack of detail is a notable shortfall.
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—just one sentence with the prerequisite in brackets—and front-loaded with the key action. There is no wasted verbiage, making it efficient and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (a destructive delete operation) and the absence of both annotations and an output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavioral outcomes, error handling, and return values, which are crucial for safe and effective use by an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'id' parameter documented as 'The AniList activity ID to delete'. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage without extra value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Delete') and the resource ('the current authorized user's activity post'), making the purpose evident. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_thread' or 'remove_list_entry', which prevents a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description includes '[Requires Login]' which provides some context about prerequisites, but it offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'delete_thread' or 'remove_list_entry', nor does it specify conditions for deletion (e.g., ownership, timing). This leaves significant gaps in usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the login requirement (auth context) and implies destructive action through 'Delete', but fails to describe critical behaviors: whether deletion is permanent/reversible, what happens to associated comments/data, rate limits, permission requirements beyond login, or expected response format. For a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant 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 extremely concise at just 6 words, front-loading the critical login requirement and action. Every word earns its place: '[Requires Login]' sets context, 'Delete' specifies action, 'a thread' identifies resource, and 'by its ID' clarifies parameter usage. No wasted words or redundant 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?
For a destructive mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. While concise, it lacks essential context: expected response format, error conditions, permanence of deletion, side effects on related data, and specific permission requirements. The '[Requires Login]' hint is helpful but insufficient for a tool that permanently removes data.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% with the parameter 'id' fully documented as 'The AniList thread ID to delete'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, simply referencing 'by its ID'. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Delete') and resource ('a thread by its ID'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_activity' or 'get_thread', but the specificity of 'thread' vs 'activity' provides some distinction. The description avoids tautology by not just restating the name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides minimal guidance with the '[Requires Login]' prefix, indicating a prerequisite condition. However, it offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_thread' (for viewing) or 'delete_activity' (for different resource types), nor does it specify any exclusion criteria or error 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the login requirement, which is useful, but fails to describe key traits like whether this is a toggle action (favourite/unfavourite), potential side effects (e.g., updates to user profiles), rate limits, or error conditions. This leaves significant gaps for an AI agent.
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 highly concise and front-loaded, consisting of just one sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose and prerequisite. Every word earns its place, with no wasted information, making it easy for an AI agent to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a mutation tool (favourite/unfavourite) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior (e.g., toggle nature), return values, error handling, and how it integrates with sibling tools, leaving the AI agent with insufficient context for reliable use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with the 'id' parameter clearly documented as 'The AniList ID of the character to favourite/unfavourite'. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond this, so it meets the baseline score of 3 for adequate but not enhanced parameter understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('favourite or unfavourite') and resource ('a character by its ID'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'favourite_anime' or 'favourite_manga' beyond the character focus, which prevents a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides minimal guidance with '[Requires Login]', indicating a prerequisite, but offers no explicit advice on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to favourite vs. unfavourite, or how it relates to other favourite tools). This lack of context-specific direction limits its utility for an AI agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states it's a read operation ('Get'), but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or response format. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and includes the key constraint (by AniList ID). Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'detailed information' includes, error cases, or response structure. For a tool with rich sibling context (e.g., media retrieval), more detail is needed to guide effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'id' fully documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value by specifying 'AniList ID', which is already in the schema description. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'detailed information about an anime', specifying it's by AniList ID. It distinguishes from siblings like search_anime by focusing on retrieval by ID rather than search queries, though it doesn't explicitly mention this distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_anime or get_user_anime_list. The description implies usage when you have an AniList ID, but offers no context on prerequisites, limitations, or sibling tool 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, so the description carries the full burden. It states it's a read operation ('Get information'), implying no destructive effects, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or response format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get information about a character') and specifies input methods. There is no wasted wording, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what information is returned (e.g., character details, media appearances), error cases, or behavioral traits like authentication needs. For a tool with rich sibling context and no structured support, more completeness is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'id' documented as accepting 'AniList ID of the character' with type number or string. The description adds that it can also use 'name', which isn't reflected in the schema, providing some extra semantic value beyond the structured data.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get information') and resource ('about a character'), specifying it can be done by 'AniList ID or name'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_character' or 'get_todays_birthday_characters', which would require more specific scope or context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_character' or 'get_todays_birthday_characters'. It mentions the input methods (ID or name) but doesn't clarify scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool retrieves information ('Get'), implying a read-only operation, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error conditions, or response format. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose ('Get a user's complete profile and stats information'), making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and multiple sibling tools with similar purposes, the description is incomplete. It doesn't clarify what 'complete' entails, how it differs from other user-info tools, or what the response includes, leaving the agent with insufficient context for optimal use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'user' documented as 'Username or user ID'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond this, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without compensating value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('user's complete profile and stats information'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_user_profile' or 'get_user_stats', which appear to offer similar or overlapping functionality.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_user_profile' or 'get_user_stats'. The description implies it retrieves comprehensive data, but it doesn't specify prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual triggers for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states it 'gets' a recommendation, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or response format. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary details. It's appropriately sized for a simple lookup tool, with zero waste or redundancy, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and a simple parameter schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., what data is returned, error cases) and usage context. For a tool in a server with many siblings, more guidance would help the agent use it correctly in context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds minimal meaning beyond the input schema, which has 100% coverage for the single parameter 'recommendID'. It mentions 'by its ID', aligning with the schema's description, but doesn't provide extra context like ID format or examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('AniList recommendation'), specifying it retrieves by ID. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_recommendations_for_media' by focusing on a single recommendation, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives. This is specific but lacks direct sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid recommendation ID), exclusions, or compare with siblings like 'get_recommendations_for_media' for bulk retrieval. The description is minimal, offering no usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'gets' recommendations, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't mention any behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication needs, or pagination behavior. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., structure of recommendations), behavioral constraints, or how to handle errors. For a tool with three parameters and no structured output, more context is needed for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters (mediaID, page, perPage) with descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining what 'recommendations' entail or how parameters interact. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('AniList recommendations for a specific media'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_recommendation' (singular vs. plural), which could cause confusion.
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 'get_recommendation' or other media-related tools. The description lacks context about prerequisites or typical use cases, leaving the agent without usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states it 'gets information' (implying read-only), but doesn't specify what information is returned (e.g., details like founded date, location, media list), error handling for invalid IDs/names, rate limits, authentication requirements, or whether it's idempotent. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It front-loads the core purpose ('Get information about a studio') and adds necessary specificity ('by its AniList ID or name'). Every word earns its place, making it easy to parse quickly without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (read operation with 1 parameter), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what information is returned (critical without output schema), error scenarios, or usage context relative to siblings. For a tool in a media API context with many sibling tools, more guidance is needed to ensure correct agent invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'studio' documented as 'The studio ID or name' of type string/number. The description adds that it's an 'AniList ID or name', specifying the source context (AniList platform), which provides marginal value beyond the schema. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline is 3, and the description doesn't significantly enhance parameter understanding (e.g., format examples, validation rules).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get information') and resource ('about a studio'), specifying it can be retrieved by 'AniList ID or name'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'search_studio' (which likely returns multiple results) by focusing on retrieving a single studio's information. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'favourite_studio' (which modifies preferences) or 'get_staff' (different resource type), leaving some sibling differentiation implicit rather than explicit.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to choose 'get_studio' over 'search_studio' (for exact vs. fuzzy matching), 'get_anime' (for related media), or 'favourite_studio' (for modifying preferences). There's no context about prerequisites, such as needing a valid studio identifier, or exclusions like handling non-existent studios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions retrieval by ID but doesn't specify if this is a read-only operation, what permissions are needed, error handling for invalid IDs, or the format of the returned thread. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. It directly communicates the tool's function in a compact form, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what a 'thread' entails in this context, what data is returned, or any behavioral aspects like rate limits or authentication needs. Given the lack of structured data, more contextual information is needed for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'id' documented as 'The AniList ID of the thread'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as ID format examples or validation rules. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('a specific thread'), specifying it's retrieved by 'AniList ID'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_thread_comments' by focusing on thread retrieval rather than comments, but doesn't explicitly contrast with all other 'get_' tools. The purpose 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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_activity' or 'get_activity' for finding threads, nor does it mention prerequisites or context for usage. It simply states what the tool does without indicating appropriate scenarios or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states a read operation ('Get') but doesn't cover aspects like pagination behavior (implied by 'page' and 'perPage' parameters), rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with multiple parameters.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose ('Get comments for a specific thread'), making it easy to parse quickly, though this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness in other dimensions.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool with 3 parameters and pagination behavior. It doesn't explain return values, error cases, or behavioral traits, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use it effectively beyond basic parameter input.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents parameters like 'id' (AniList thread ID), 'page', and 'perPage'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying pagination through the tool's name and context, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage without extra value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('comments for a specific thread'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_thread' or 'get_activity', which also retrieve thread-related or comment-related data, leaving some ambiguity about its unique scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'get_thread' (which might include comments) and 'get_activity' (which could involve comment retrieval), the description lacks context on prerequisites, exclusions, or specific use cases, offering minimal help for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves data ('Get all staff members'), implying a read-only operation, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, pagination behavior (despite a 'page' parameter), or response format. This is inadequate for a tool with no annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with zero wasted words, efficiently conveying the core purpose. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (a filtered query with pagination), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain behavioral aspects like pagination, return format, or any constraints, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand how to use it effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'page' parameter documented as 'What page in the search to target'. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage without compensating value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('staff members whose birthday is today'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'get_todays_birthday_characters', which serves a similar purpose for a different resource type, missing full sibling distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'get_staff' for general staff retrieval or 'get_todays_birthday_characters' for a similar birthday query on characters. There's no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'fetch activities' but doesn't describe what 'activities' entail, whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, or any rate limits or pagination behavior beyond what's implied by the schema. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely interacts with user data.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence ('Fetch activities from a user') with no wasted words. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's purpose, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of fetching user activities, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'activities' include (e.g., posts, likes, updates), the response format, or any behavioral aspects like error handling. This leaves the agent with insufficient context for reliable use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for all parameters (e.g., 'The user's AniList ID' for 'user'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining what 'activities' are or how pagination works in practice. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema adequately documents the 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 'Fetch activities from a user' clearly states the verb ('fetch') and resource ('activities from a user'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'get_activity' or 'get_user_recent_activity', which appear to serve similar functions, so it lacks sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_activity' or 'get_user_recent_activity', nor does it specify any context, prerequisites, or exclusions for usage, leaving the agent with no direction on tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states a read operation ('Get'), which implies safety, but fails to mention critical details like authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination, or the format of the returned anime list. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and perfectly sized for its minimal content, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like authentication, rate limits, or response format, which are crucial for a tool that retrieves user-specific data. This leaves the agent with insufficient information to use the tool effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting the 'user' parameter as a username or user ID. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or constraints, so it meets the baseline for adequate but unenhanced parameter documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'a user's anime list', which is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_user_manga_list' or 'get_user_activity', which would require explicit distinction for a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_user_manga_list' or 'get_user_profile'. It lacks any context about prerequisites, such as whether the user must be public or authenticated, which is essential for effective tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Get' implies a read operation, but it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, returns paginated results, includes private lists, or has rate limits. For a user-specific data retrieval tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that states the core purpose without any fluff. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool and front-loads the essential information. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and a user-specific data retrieval operation, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address authentication requirements, return format, error conditions, or how it differs from similar tools. For a tool that likely returns structured user data, more context is needed for effective agent use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'user' documented as 'Username or user ID'. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even without param details in the description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('a user's manga list'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_user_anime_list' or 'get_manga', but the specificity of 'user's manga list' provides inherent distinction. This is clear but lacks explicit sibling comparison.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_user_anime_list' or 'get_manga'. There's no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the name alone, which is insufficient for optimal tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a 'Get' operation (implying read-only), but doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what the profile contains. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that communicates the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool and front-loads the essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what a 'profile' contains, how results are structured, or any behavioral constraints. The agent would need to guess about return values and operational characteristics.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'user' parameter documented as 'Username or user ID'. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('user's AniList profile'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_full_user_info' or 'get_user_stats', which prevents a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_full_user_info' or 'get_user_stats'. There's no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from tool names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions authentication requirements ('[Requires Login]') and the dual create/update functionality, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or what happens during updates (e.g., overwriting vs. merging). For a mutation tool, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded, consisting of just two sentences that directly state the tool's function and prerequisite. There's no wasted text, and the information is presented efficiently. However, the bracketed '[Requires Login]' could be integrated more smoothly, slightly affecting 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 the tool's complexity (a mutation operation with authentication needs) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values, error conditions, or behavioral nuances like how updates affect existing data. For a tool that modifies data, this leaves too much unspecified for safe and effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting both parameters ('id' and 'text'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as format constraints or examples. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.
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: 'Post a new text activity or update an existing one.' It specifies the verb ('Post'/'update') and resource ('text activity'), making it easy to understand. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'post_message_activity' or 'update_user', which could cause confusion about when to use this specific tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides minimal guidance: it mentions '[Requires Login]' as a prerequisite but offers no explicit advice on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of when not to use it or how it differs from similar tools like 'post_message_activity' or 'update_user', leaving usage context largely implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the login requirement, which is useful, but fails to describe critical traits like whether the removal is permanent, reversible, or has side effects (e.g., affecting user stats). For a mutation tool, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with only one sentence, front-loading the login requirement and action. There is no wasted text, making it efficient and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on what 'remove' entails (e.g., deletion vs. archiving), error conditions, or return values, leaving the agent with incomplete context for safe invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with the 'id' parameter clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying the 'id' refers to a list entry, which is already covered. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Remove') and target ('an entry from the authorized user's list'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from similar siblings like 'delete_activity' or 'delete_thread', which also perform removal operations but on different resources.
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 minimal guidance with '[Requires Login]', indicating a prerequisite but not when to use this tool versus alternatives. No explicit comparisons to siblings like 'update_list_entry' or 'add_list_entry' are made, leaving usage context vague.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Search') but doesn't cover key traits like pagination behavior (implied by parameters but not described), rate limits, authentication needs, or what the search returns (e.g., format, fields). This leaves significant gaps for a tool with 3 parameters and no output schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste—it directly states the tool's function without redundancy or fluff. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (search functionality with 3 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain behavioral aspects like result format, pagination, or error handling, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use the tool effectively beyond basic invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents parameters (term, amount, page). The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying a search term is used, which is already clear from the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('characters'), and includes the search mechanism ('based on a query term'). It distinguishes from non-search siblings but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other search tools like search_anime or search_manga, which is why it's not a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_character (for specific character lookup) or other search tools (e.g., search_anime). It lacks context about use cases, exclusions, or prerequisites, offering only basic functional information.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but only states the basic action. It doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, pagination behavior, or error conditions. For a search tool with complex parameters, this is inadequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with just 7 words, front-loading the core purpose without any wasted language. Every word serves a clear function in communicating the tool's basic intent.
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 complex search tool with 4 parameters (including a nested filter object with 60+ properties), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what results look like, how pagination works, error handling, or the relationship between term and filter parameters. The schema does heavy lifting, but the description should provide more operational context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by mentioning 'query term and filters' but doesn't provide additional context beyond what's in the schema. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose as 'Search for manga with query term and filters', which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_anime' or 'search_character' beyond the manga focus, missing explicit sibling distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_manga' or 'search_anime'. It lacks any context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or comparison with sibling tools, offering minimal usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions searching but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination (implied by parameters), rate limits, authentication needs, or what constitutes a 'staff member'. The description is minimal and lacks crucial operational details for a search tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste—it directly states the tool's function without redundancy. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and a search tool with 3 parameters, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on return format (e.g., what fields are included), error handling, or how search results are ranked. For a tool with moderate complexity, this leaves significant gaps for an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents parameters (term, amount, page). The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying 'term' is for searching, which is already clear from the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('search') and target resource ('staff members') with the constraint 'based on a query term'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_staff' (likely a direct fetch) by specifying search functionality, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'search_user' or 'search_activity' which share similar patterns.
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 'get_staff' (which might retrieve specific staff by ID) or other search tools (e.g., 'search_user'). The description implies usage for finding staff with a query but lacks explicit 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.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination behavior (implied by parameters but not described), rate limits, authentication needs, or what the search returns (e.g., partial vs. full results). This is a significant gap for a tool with parameters and no output schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple search tool, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and 3 parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the search returns, how results are structured, or any behavioral context like error handling. For a search tool with pagination parameters, this leaves the agent with insufficient information to use it effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents parameters like 'term', 'amount', and 'page'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying a search term is used, which is already covered. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Search') and resource ('studios'), specifying it's based on a query term. It distinguishes from non-search siblings but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other search tools like search_anime or search_character, which have similar patterns.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. It doesn't mention when to prefer this over get_studio (which might fetch a specific studio) or how it differs from other search tools in the sibling list, leaving usage context implied at best.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but only states the basic action. It doesn't describe what the search returns (user objects, IDs, profiles), whether it's paginated (implied by parameters but not stated), authentication requirements, rate limits, or search algorithm characteristics. This leaves significant behavioral gaps for a search operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that states the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a search tool and front-loads the essential information. Every word earns its place in this concise formulation.
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 search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what constitutes a 'user' in this context, what fields are searchable, what the return format looks like, or how results are ordered. The agent would need to guess about the search behavior and result structure based solely on parameter descriptions.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it mentions 'search term' which aligns with the 'term' parameter but provides no extra context about search syntax, matching behavior, or result ordering.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Search for users') and resource ('on AniList'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this user search from sibling search tools like search_anime or search_character, which follow the same pattern but target different resources.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of when search_user is appropriate versus get_user_profile or get_full_user_info, nor any context about search scope, limitations, or prerequisites for using this search functionality.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the login requirement but doesn't describe what 'Update' entails—whether it overwrites all fields, merges changes, or has side effects. It also doesn't mention error conditions, response format, or any rate limits or permissions beyond login.
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, efficient sentence that front-loads the key information ('[Requires Login]' and 'Update an entry'). There's no wasted text, though it could be slightly more structured by separating the prerequisite from the action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of the input schema (with nested objects and many fields) and the absence of both annotations and an output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how updates are applied, or provide any context for the numerous options in the schema, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents the two parameters ('id' and 'options') and their nested properties. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining the relationship between 'id' and 'options.id' or clarifying usage of the 'options' object.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Update') and target ('an entry on the authorized user's list'), making the purpose understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'add_list_entry' or 'remove_list_entry', but the verb 'Update' implies modification of existing entries rather than creation or deletion.
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 includes '[Requires Login]' which indicates a prerequisite, but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'add_list_entry' or 'remove_list_entry'. There's no mention of what constitutes a valid entry to update or any context for choosing between update and other list operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves data ('Get'), implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or response format, which are critical for safe invocation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get a specific AniList activity by its ID') with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple lookup tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read operation with one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but lacks completeness. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like authentication or response structure, which are important given the absence of annotations and output schema, leaving gaps in contextual understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the parameter 'activityID' documented as 'The AniList activity ID'. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond this, such as format examples or constraints, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without compensating value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('a specific AniList activity by its ID'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_user_activity' or 'search_activity', which also retrieve activities but with different scopes or methods.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_user_activity' (for user-specific activities) or 'search_activity' (for broader searches), leaving the agent without context for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it retrieves 'detailed information' but doesn't specify what that includes (e.g., chapters, ratings, synopsis), whether it's a read-only operation, potential rate limits, or error handling. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. Every part ('Get detailed information', 'about a manga', 'by its AniList ID') contributes directly to understanding the tool's function.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on output format, error cases, or integration with sibling tools. Without annotations or output schema, more context would improve completeness for agent use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'id' clearly documented as 'The AniList ID of the manga'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or validation rules. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get detailed information') and resource ('about a manga'), specifying it uses an AniList ID. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'search_manga' by focusing on retrieval by ID rather than search queries. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'get_anime' or other get_* tools, which slightly limits differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to prefer this over 'search_manga' for known IDs, or how it relates to other get_* tools like 'get_anime'. Without such context, the agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states a read operation ('Get') but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it requires authentication, rate limits, pagination, or the format of returned data. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters) but lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'media tags' entail or the return format, which is crucial for an agent to use it effectively in context with other data retrieval tools.
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 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate, earning a baseline score of 4 for adequately handling the lack of 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 ('Get') and resource ('all available media tags on AniList'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_genres' or 'get_activity', which might also retrieve metadata categories, so it misses full sibling distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as whether it's for filtering media or general reference. With many sibling tools for retrieving data, this lack of context leaves the agent without explicit usage instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the basic function. It doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation, how results are returned (e.g., pagination behavior beyond the 'page' parameter), rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens when no birthdays match today's date.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple query tool and front-loads the essential information.
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 query tool with one well-documented parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks important context about return format, pagination behavior, and how 'today' is determined (timezone considerations), which would be helpful given no annotations exist.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'page' parameter clearly documented. The description doesn't add any parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, but since schema coverage is complete, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and resource 'characters whose birthday is today', making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling 'get_todays_birthday_staff' by specifying characters rather than staff, though it doesn't explicitly mention this distinction in the description itself.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_character' or 'search_character', nor does it mention any prerequisites or contextual constraints. It simply states what the tool does without usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action is to 'Get' statistics, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what the statistics include (e.g., anime/manga counts, scores). This leaves significant gaps for safe and effective use.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally complete but lacks depth. It doesn't explain what 'statistics' entail or provide context for usage among siblings, which could hinder an agent's ability to use it correctly in a broader workflow.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'user' parameter documented as 'Username or user ID'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond this, so it meets the baseline of 3 for adequate coverage without extra value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'a user's AniList statistics', making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_user_profile' or 'get_full_user_info', which might also retrieve user-related data, leaving some ambiguity about scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'get_user_profile' and 'get_full_user_info', there's no indication of what distinguishes this tool (e.g., statistics vs. general info), leaving the agent to infer usage from context alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the login requirement and create/update functionality, but fails to describe critical behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication specifics, whether updates are destructive or reversible, or what happens to existing data during updates. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized with two concise sentences that front-load the login requirement and core functionality. Every sentence earns its place, though it could be slightly more structured by separating the login prerequisite from the action description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information about return values, error conditions, side effects, or how the tool interacts with sibling tools (e.g., 'delete_activity'). For a tool that modifies data, this level of documentation is insufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain parameter interactions or provide examples). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
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 with specific verbs ('post' and 'update') and resource ('message activity'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'post_text_activity' which handles text activities rather than messages. However, it doesn't fully differentiate from 'delete_activity' in terms of operation type beyond the obvious create/update vs. delete distinction.
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 context with '[Requires Login]' and mentions creating new or updating existing activities, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'post_text_activity' or 'delete_activity'. No exclusions or prerequisites beyond login are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the login requirement, which is useful context, but fails to disclose key behavioral traits such as whether this is a toggle (favourite/unfavourite), the effect on existing data, rate limits, or error conditions. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
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—just one sentence with the prerequisite in brackets. It is front-loaded with the key requirement and action, with zero wasted words, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers the login requirement but misses critical details like behavioral outcomes (e.g., toggle behavior), error handling, or return values, leaving the agent with insufficient context for reliable use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'id' parameter documented as 'The AniList ID of the anime to favourite/unfavourite'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('favourite or unfavourite') and the resource ('an anime by its ID'), making the purpose specific and understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'favourite_character' or 'favourite_manga' by specifying anime, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them in the text.
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 includes '[Requires Login]' as a prerequisite, providing some context for when to use it. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives (e.g., how it differs from other favourite_* tools) or any exclusions, leaving usage somewhat implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions a login requirement, which is useful, but doesn't disclose other behavioral traits such as whether this is a toggle action (favourite/unfavourite), potential side effects (e.g., updating user lists), rate limits, or error conditions. The description is minimal and lacks depth 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 extremely concise with two parts: a prerequisite in brackets and the core action, all in one sentence. It's front-loaded with the login requirement and wastes no words, making it efficient and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that this is a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and minimal description, it lacks completeness. The description covers the basic action and login need but omits details on behavior (e.g., toggle nature), response format, or error handling, leaving gaps for an AI agent to understand full usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'id' fully documented in the schema as 'The AniList ID of the manga to favourite/unfavourite'. The description doesn't add any additional meaning beyond this, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('favourite or unfavourite') and resource ('a manga by its ID'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'favourite_anime' or 'favourite_character' beyond specifying 'manga', which is implied but not contrasted.
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 includes '[Requires Login]' which provides context on prerequisites, but it doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to favourite vs. unfavourite, or how it relates to other favourite tools). Usage is implied through the action, but no explicit guidance on scenarios or exclusions is 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 provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the login requirement, which is useful context. However, it doesn't describe other important traits such as whether this is a toggle operation (favourite/unfavourite), what happens on success/failure, rate limits, or any side effects. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise and front-loaded, consisting of just two parts: the prerequisite in brackets and the core action. Every element earns its place by providing essential information without any wasted words or redundant phrasing, making it highly efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity as a mutation operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., toggle nature, response format, error handling) and doesn't compensate for the absence of structured data. While concise, it doesn't provide enough context for safe and effective use by an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'id' parameter clearly documented as 'The AniList ID of the staff member to favourite/unfavourite'. The description doesn't add any additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the parameter documentation adequately.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('favourite or unfavourite') and the target resource ('a staff member by their ID'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from similar sibling tools like 'favourite_anime', 'favourite_character', 'favourite_manga', and 'favourite_studio', which all perform analogous operations on different resource types.
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 includes a prerequisite ('[Requires Login]'), which provides some context for when to use this tool. However, it doesn't offer explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives (e.g., other 'favourite_' tools for different resource types) or any exclusions. The usage 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.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the login requirement, which is useful, but fails to describe whether this is a toggle operation (favourite/unfavourite), what happens on success/failure, or any rate limits or side effects. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with just one sentence that front-loads the login requirement and states the action and resource. There is zero wasted text, and every word earns its place, making it highly efficient and well-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?
Given that this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on the operation's behavior (e.g., toggle vs. set, response format, error handling), which are crucial for an AI agent to use it correctly. The login hint is helpful but insufficient for full contextual understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'id' parameter clearly documented as 'The AniList ID of the studio to favourite/unfavourite'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('favourite or unfavourite') and resource ('a studio by its ID'), making the purpose specific and actionable. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from similar sibling tools like 'favourite_anime', 'favourite_character', etc., which all follow the same pattern for different entity types.
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 includes a prerequisite '[Requires Login]', which provides some context for when authentication is needed. However, it doesn't offer guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other favourite_* tools for different entities) or any exclusions, leaving usage somewhat implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the login requirement, which is useful, but doesn't explain whether this is a toggle (follow/unfollow based on current state), what happens on success/failure, rate limits, or permission needs beyond login. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant 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 extremely concise and front-loaded, with only one sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose and a key prerequisite. Every word earns its place, making it easy to parse without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., toggle behavior, error handling), return values, and broader context needed for safe and effective use, despite the concise structure.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'userID' clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema (e.g., format, constraints, or examples), so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without compensating value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Follow or unfollow') and target resource ('a user by their ID'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from potential siblings like 'get_user_profile' or 'search_user' that also involve user operations, keeping it from a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides some usage context with '[Requires Login]', indicating a prerequisite, but doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_user_profile' for viewing or 'search_user' for finding users. It implies usage for following/unfollowing but lacks explicit guidance on scenarios or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states it 'gets' data, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify if it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or details the output format. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose without any wasted words. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple tool, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks details on output format or behavioral aspects like authentication needs, which could be important for integration. It meets basic requirements but has clear gaps in completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate here. A baseline of 4 is applied since it doesn't need to compensate for any schema gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('all available genres on AniList'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_media_tags' or 'get_anime', which might also return genre-related data, so it doesn't reach the highest score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'get_anime' or 'get_media_tags' that might include genre information, there's no indication of when this specific tool is preferred or necessary, leaving usage context unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it 'gets information' but doesn't specify what information is returned (e.g., biography, roles), whether it requires authentication, rate limits, or error handling. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It front-loads the core purpose and parameter context, making it easy to parse without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what information is returned (e.g., fields like name, biography, works), error cases (e.g., invalid ID), or behavioral traits like authentication needs. For a read operation with rich sibling tools, this leaves the agent under-informed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'id' documented as 'The AniList ID or name of the staff member'. The description adds minimal value beyond this, merely restating 'by their AniList ID or name'. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and resource 'information about staff member', specifying it retrieves data by 'AniList ID or name'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'search_staff' by focusing on retrieval by identifier rather than search queries, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'get_todays_birthday_staff' which has a different scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is implied through the parameter specification (ID or name), suggesting it's for looking up specific staff members. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'search_staff' (for broader searches) or 'get_todays_birthday_staff' (for birthday-specific data), leaving some ambiguity for the agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions searching but fails to describe key traits like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs (implied by some filter parameters like 'onList'), or the return format (e.g., pagination, result structure). This leaves significant gaps for a search tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence: 'Search for anime with query term and filters'. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, has zero waste, and appropriately sized for a tool with a well-documented schema, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (4 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the return values, pagination behavior, or error conditions, which are critical for a search tool. The schema handles parameter details, but the description fails to provide necessary operational context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all parameters. The description adds minimal value by mentioning 'query term and filters', which aligns with the 'term' and 'filter' parameters but doesn't provide additional syntax or usage insights beyond what's in the schema. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose as 'Search for anime with query term and filters', which specifies the verb ('Search'), resource ('anime'), and key parameters. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_anime' (which likely fetches a specific anime) by emphasizing search functionality, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage through its mention of 'query term and filters', suggesting it's for finding anime based on criteria. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus siblings like 'get_anime' or 'search_manga', and doesn't specify prerequisites or exclusions, leaving usage context somewhat inferred.
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 the tool retrieves statistics but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it's a read-only operation, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what format the statistics are returned in. The description is minimal and lacks necessary context for safe invocation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. Every part of the sentence contributes meaning: the action, resource, and temporal scope. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally complete but lacks details about return values or behavioral context. For a statistics retrieval tool, users need to know what data is returned and in what format. The description doesn't compensate for the absence of annotations or 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 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, maintaining focus on the tool's purpose without redundancy. This meets the baseline for zero-parameter tools.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'AniList site statistics', specifying the scope 'over the last seven days'. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_user_stats or get_activity by focusing on site-wide data rather than user-specific information, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for retrieving aggregated site statistics from the past week, but doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_user_stats or get_genres. It lacks statements about when not to use it or detailed 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the authentication requirement ('[Requires Login]'), which is a key behavioral trait. However, it lacks details on rate limits, error handling, or what specific profile information is returned (e.g., fields, format). The description adds some value but is incomplete for behavioral transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise and front-loaded, consisting of just one sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose and key constraint. Every word earns its place, with no wasted information or 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?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is somewhat complete but could be improved. It mentions authentication but doesn't specify the return format or data scope. For a tool that retrieves user data, more detail on what 'profile information' includes would enhance completeness, though the lack of output schema increases the burden on the description.
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 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter semantics, but this is acceptable given the schema's completeness. A baseline of 4 is appropriate as the description doesn't need to compensate for any gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('profile information of the currently authorized user'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'get_user_profile' or 'get_full_user_info', which might retrieve similar user data but for different users or with different scopes.
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 context with '[Requires Login]', suggesting it should be used when authenticated, but it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'get_user_profile' or 'get_full_user_info'. The usage is implied rather than clearly defined relative to siblings.
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:

[![anilist-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/yuna0x0/anilist-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/yuna0x0/anilist-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![anilist-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/yuna0x0/anilist-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/yuna0x0/anilist-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

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

MCP directory API

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

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/yuna0x0/anilist-mcp'

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