Generates desktop macro scripts from user instructions for automation tasks
Single tool 'get_macro' with minimal definition quality. Tool has a verb-starting name (good), but description is extremely sparse (35 chars), parameters lack depth, and no output schema is documented. The tool accepts only one input parameter with minimal guidance. This server falls into the F/D range due to incomplete definitions and lack of production-grade documentation.
Generates a macro script based on user instructions
Tool description is too brief (35 chars; baseline 194 chars). Does not explain WHEN to use this tool, what the macro_script output format is, or what kinds of instructions are supported.
No input parameter description. 'user_instruction' parameter has no description explaining what kinds of instructions are valid, what format is expected, constraints, or examples (e.g. does it support AppleScript, AutoHotkey, Python?). LLM cannot infer valid usage.
No output schema documented. The tool returns a dict with 'macro_script' field, but no description states what this field contains, what scripting language, or how the LLM should use it. LLM cannot plan downstream actions.
No error handling documented. What happens if the instruction is invalid, ambiguous, or not supported? Should the agent retry, ask for clarification, or try a different approach? No guidance provided.
| Scored | Grade | Overall | Spec posture | Rubric |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-09-23 | F | 34 | 2026-07-28+ | v2 |
Input parameter lacks type hint. While Python code shows 'user_instruction: str', the schema visible to the LLM must explicitly declare type='string' with a description. Current definition is minimal.