Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• helpC
  2.1/5.0
  Behavior1/5

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

  No annotations are provided, and the description fails to disclose any behavioral traits such as what happens when called, whether it is read-only, or what response to expect. This leaves the agent completely uninformed about the tool's behavior.

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

  Conciseness3/5

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

  The description is extremely concise (one phrase) but lacks structure. It is not verbose, but it is also not informative enough to be considered well-structured for its purpose.

  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 should provide more context about the tool's functionality and return value. It is too brief to be complete for an agent to use 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% coverage with a clear description for the single parameter 'title'. The top-level description adds no additional semantic value beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline.

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

  Purpose2/5

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

  The description '需要获取协助时调用' restates the tool name 'help' without specifying what kind of assistance is provided. It does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'download_apis' or 'execute_mysql_only', which have clear purposes.

  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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies general assistance but does not provide explicit context for when it should be invoked.

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

• download_apisB
  3.1/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  Without annotations, the description fails to disclose behavioral traits such as potential side effects (e.g., overwriting files), authentication requirements beyond an API key, rate limits, or the scope of 'all APIs' (e.g., all in project? all versions?). The description is too brief to ensure an agent understands behavioral implications.

  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 concise sentence that directly communicates the tool's purpose and required inputs. No unnecessary words or redundancy, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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

  Completeness3/5

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

  Given no output schema, the description omits return value details (e.g., success indication, file paths). It also does not mention error handling or prerequisites. For a simple download tool, it covers the basics but lacks completeness for robust agent 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minor semantic value by noting the apiKey can be 'read rule or user-specified', but this is a small addition. No further parameter context is provided beyond the schema.

  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 (download all APIs from Apifox to a specified directory) and mentions the key parameters (rootDir, projectId, apiKey). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'import_openapi', leaving ambiguity about when to use this specific tool over others.

  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 or any usage constraints. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or when not to use it.

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

• run_curlB
  3.3/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations exist, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions parsing and execution but omits important traits like whether outgoing requests are allowed, potential side effects, or error handling. The tool executes arbitrary curl commands, which could be destructive.

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

  Conciseness5/5

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

  Single sentence that directly states the purpose. No superfluous content; front-loaded and efficient.

  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 one-parameter tool without output schema, the description is adequate but lacks details on the return format (e.g., does it return status code, headers, body?). Context from sibling tools is not leveraged.

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

  Parameters3/5

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

  Schema coverage is 100% with a descriptive parameter description including an example. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema.

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

  Purpose5/5

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

  The description clearly states the verb 'parse and execute curl command' and specific resource 'curl command', making it distinct from sibling tools like execute_mysql_only and download_apis.

  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 run_curl vs alternatives such as download_apis or import_openapi. The description does not provide context or exclusions.

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

• import_openapiA
  3.5/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether import is additive or destructive, rate limits, or required permissions. The description only states it imports data, leaving ambiguity.

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

  Conciseness3/5

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

  The description is a single sentence that front-loads the purpose but mixes conditions (prerequisite, input types) without clear structure. It is somewhat concise but could be better organized.

  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?

  There is no output schema, and the description does not explain return values or side effects. It covers input types adequately given the schema's richness, but lacks details on what happens after import (e.g., success indication, error handling).

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

  Parameters4/5

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

  The schema covers 100% of parameters, and the description adds meaning by explaining the 'input' parameter's prefixes ('file#' and 'dir#') and noting that paths may include drive letters. This adds value beyond the schema's basic descriptions.

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

  Purpose5/5

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

  The description clearly states the tool imports OpenAPI data into Apifox for generating API documentation. It specifies the input formats (JSON string, directory, file) and distinguishes from sibling tools that focus on downloading or executing queries.

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

  Usage Guidelines3/5

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

  The description mentions when to use it (when the user explicitly generates API docs) and prerequisites (project ID and API key). However, it does not explicitly exclude cases or compare with sibling tools like download_apis.

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

• execute_mysql_onlyA
  3.6/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations provided. The description implies mutation (since it's for write operations not supported by read-only), but does not explicitly state behavioral traits like data modification, error handling, or permissions. The retry behavior is mentioned only in the input schema, not the main description.

  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?

  Very concise, front-loaded with purpose. Single sentence with necessary context. Slightly cramped but effective.

  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 two parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides the essential distinction but lacks details on outcomes, side effects, and error handling.

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

  Parameters3/5

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

  Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds the retry detail (in schema) but no additional meaning beyond schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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

  Purpose5/5

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

  The description clearly states it executes MySQL statements not supported by the sibling tool execute_mysql_readonly, which distinguishes its purpose precisely.

  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?

  Explicitly says to use this tool only for statements the read-only sibling does not support, and advises reading rules or DSN before use. Minor omission of explicit when-not scenarios.

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

• execute_mysql_readonlyA
  3.6/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states that the tool is read-only and will terminate for non-read operations, which provides safety transparency. However, it lacks details on error handling, authentication, or other behavioral aspects.

  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, containing two clauses in one sentence. It is front-loaded with the core functionality. However, the phrase about reading rules is slightly vague and could be clearer.

  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 simple structure (two required params, no output schema), the description covers the purpose and constraints but omits information about return values, potential errors, or result format. It is adequate but not fully complete.

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

  Parameters4/5

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

  The schema already describes both parameters with 100% coverage. The description adds value by reinforcing the read-only constraint on the SQL parameter and the need for a valid DSN, providing additional meaning beyond the schema.

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

  Purpose5/5

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

  The description clearly states the tool executes read-only MySQL statements supporting SELECT, SHOW, DESCRIBE, etc. It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'execute_mysql_only' by emphasizing the read-only constraint.

  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 mentions reading rules before use but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, or when not to use it. No exclusion criteria or alternative tool references are given.

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