Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• recommend-mcp-serversB
  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. It states the tool explores the internet and returns a list with IDs, descriptions, GitHub URLs, and similarity scores, which covers some behavioral aspects. However, it lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, potential errors, or how the exploration works (e.g., API calls, web scraping). For a tool with no 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.

  Conciseness4/5

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

  The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the usage context and then detailing the action and return values. It uses three sentences efficiently, with no wasted words, though it could be slightly more polished (e.g., 'findn' typo).

  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 moderate complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is somewhat complete but has gaps. It explains the purpose, usage, and return format, but lacks behavioral details like error handling or exploration mechanics. Without annotations or an output schema, more context would be beneficial for an agent 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 schema description coverage is 100%, providing detailed examples and requirements for the 'query' parameter. The description adds minimal value beyond this, only mentioning that it's 'based on the description of the MCP Server needed.' Since the schema does the heavy lifting, 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 tool's purpose: 'explores and recommends existing MCP servers from the internet, based on the description of the MCP Server needed.' It specifies the verb (explores/recommends) and resource (MCP servers), though it doesn't need to differentiate from siblings since none exist. The purpose is specific but could be slightly more precise about the exploration mechanism.

  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 for when to use the tool: 'when there is a need to find external MCP tools.' It explicitly ties usage to the query parameter's description of the needed MCP server. However, it doesn't mention when not to use it or alternatives, which isn't critical here since no siblings exist.

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