Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get_mcp_statusB
  3.4/5.0
  Behavior2/5

  Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it states what the tool does (checking process status), it doesn't describe what the check entails (e.g., local process inspection, API call), what output to expect (e.g., boolean status, detailed process info), error behavior, or performance characteristics. For a diagnostic 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 a single, clear sentence that directly states the tool's purpose with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple diagnostic 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?

  Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks details about behavioral characteristics, output format, or error handling. For a diagnostic tool that likely returns status information, the absence of output schema means the description should ideally provide more context about what 'check' returns.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters4/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage (empty schema). The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist. It focuses on the tool's purpose rather than parameter details, which is correct for a parameterless tool.

  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 ('Check') and target ('if MCP handler and Claude Desktop processes are running'). It distinguishes itself from its siblings (restart_claude, restart_mcp) by being a diagnostic check rather than a restart action. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings in the description text itself.

  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 (when you need to verify process status), but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No guidance is provided about prerequisites, error conditions, or when not to use it. The context is reasonably inferred from the tool's name and purpose.

  Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

• restart_mcpA
  4.2/5.0
  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 key behavioral trait that it 'restarts only the MCP handler process without disrupting Claude Desktop UI', which is valuable context about what gets affected. However, it doesn't mention potential side effects, permissions needed, or what 'intelligently' means operationally.

  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 complete purpose and key constraint. Every word earns its place, with no redundant information or unnecessary elaboration.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness4/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a parameterless tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate context about what the tool does and its scope. However, it could be more complete by mentioning what 'intelligently' entails or what happens after the restart completes.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters4/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist, which is correct for a parameterless tool.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the specific action ('restarts') and target resource ('MCP handler process'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools by specifying it doesn't disrupt the Claude Desktop UI. It uses precise language that differentiates it from 'restart_claude' which likely restarts the entire application.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines4/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description provides clear context about when to use this tool ('restarts only the MCP handler process') and implies it's for targeted restarts. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention specific alternatives like 'get_mcp_status' for diagnostics before restarting.

  Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

• restart_claudeA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior3/5

  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 indicates this is a restart operation (implying application termination and relaunch) but doesn't specify whether user data is preserved, if there are confirmation prompts, or what happens to ongoing processes. The description adds some context about being a fallback option but lacks detailed behavioral traits.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is perfectly concise with two clear clauses: the primary action and the usage condition. Every word earns its place, and the most important information (what it does) is front-loaded. No wasted words 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?

  For a restart tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate context about purpose and usage guidelines. However, it lacks information about what 'fully restarts' entails behaviorally (graceful shutdown, force quit, data persistence) and what to expect after invocation, which would be helpful for a mutation operation.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters4/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist, which is correct for a parameterless tool.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the specific action ('Fully restarts') and target resource ('Claude Desktop application'), distinguishing it from the sibling 'restart_mcp' tool. It provides a precise verb+resource combination that leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines5/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description explicitly states when to use this tool ('use only if MCP restart fails'), providing clear guidance on its specific use case versus the alternative 'restart_mcp' tool. This creates a clear decision hierarchy for the agent.

  Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.