Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• list_rackA
  3.6/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description must carry full weight. It discloses that the tool is a stub, which is useful behavior context, but it does not describe any side effects, failure modes, or output characteristics beyond the existing output schema.

  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 front-loaded phrase with no wasted words. Every part adds information, including the important 'stub' qualifier.

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

  Completeness5/5

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

  Given the zero-parameter input schema and presence of an output schema, the description is sufficient for an agent to understand and invoke the tool. The explicit stub marker also prevents false expectations of production behavior.

  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 zero parameters, so the description is not required to add parameter meaning. The baseline of 4 applies here.

  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 states a clear verb ('list') and resource ('currently racked MCP servers'), and explicitly marks the tool as a stub. It is readable and specific, though it does not differentiate itself from the sibling tool 'status'.

  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?

  There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus the sibling 'status' tool. The description simply states the function without context or exclusions, so an agent receives no help in choosing among alternatives.

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

• statusA
  4.1/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It transparently signals that 'racked servers' is a stub, which sets expectations about data quality. The verb 'Return' implies a non-mutating read, though it does not explicitly detail caching, freshness, or error 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, front-loaded sentence that states the purpose and enumerates return categories without any wasted words. The explicit inclusion of '(stub)' is valuable and does not add bloat.

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

  Completeness5/5

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

  For a zero-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is complete enough: it names the output categories, identifies the stub item, and has no missing invocation requirements. The only minor gap is explicit sibling differentiation, but the output content already makes that separation visible.

  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?

  There are zero parameters, and the input schema is already fully specified and empty. Per the baseline for no-parameter tools, the description adds no parameter-specific semantics because none are needed; the tool simply requires no input.

  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 action ('Return') and the resource ('router status'), and enumerates the exact contents: version, racked servers, and health. It also notes that racked servers are a stub, which distinguishes it from the sibling list_rack without ambiguity.

  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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling list_rack. It implicitly suggests status/health checking, but an agent is not told when to choose status instead of list_rack.

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