Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• query-graphqlC
  2.9/5.0
  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 action but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or response format. This is inadequate for a tool that interacts with an external endpoint, leaving 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 is appropriately sized and front-loaded, directly stating the tool's purpose 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 the complexity of querying a GraphQL endpoint, no annotations, no output schema, and incomplete parameter documentation, the description is insufficient. It fails to address critical aspects like authentication, response structure, or error scenarios, making it incomplete for effective tool 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 50% (2 out of 4 parameters have descriptions). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, as it only mentions 'query and variables' without explaining their formats or relationships. It doesn't compensate for the undocumented parameters (query and variables lack schema descriptions), resulting in a baseline score due to partial 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 ('Query') and resource ('a GraphQL endpoint'), specifying what the tool does. It distinguishes from the sibling 'introspect-schema' by focusing on general query execution rather than schema introspection, 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. The description doesn't mention the sibling tool 'introspect-schema' or any other context for selection. It simply states the action without usage context.

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

• introspect-schemaA
  3.5/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. The description mentions timing ('before doing a query') but doesn't explain what the introspection actually returns, whether it's a one-time operation or cached, what format the schema information comes in, or any authentication/rate limit considerations. 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 ('Introspect the GraphQL schema') followed by usage guidance. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration. The structure is clear and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

  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 output schema and no annotations, the description should do more to explain what the introspection returns and any behavioral considerations. While it adequately covers purpose and basic usage, it lacks details about the return format, error conditions, or operational characteristics that would help an agent use it effectively. The description is minimally viable 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.

  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 both parameters thoroughly with descriptions of their optional nature and default values. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the description doesn't need to compensate for 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 verb ('introspect') and resource ('GraphQL schema'), and specifies the purpose is to 'get the schema information'. It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'query-graphql' by indicating this is for schema discovery rather than query execution. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with the sibling beyond implied timing ('before doing a query').

  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 on when to use this tool: 'before doing a query to get the schema information if you do not have it available as a resource already'. It implies an alternative (having the schema as a pre-existing resource) and gives timing guidance. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or provide detailed comparison with the sibling tool beyond the basic distinction.

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