Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• admin.list_pending_actionsB
  3.3/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It indicates a read-only operation ('List') and a role requirement, but does not mention pagination, rate limits, or any side effects. The absence of output schema info further limits transparency.

  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 extremely concise, consisting of a single sentence with essential elements: action, version, and role. It is front-loaded and efficient. However, it could slightly expand on the listing scope without being verbose.

  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 tool's simplicity (2 optional params, no output schema), the description is somewhat incomplete. It does not indicate what fields are returned, whether pagination is needed, or the default behavior when no filters are applied. For a complete understanding, an agent would need more context.

  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 already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters (status with enum, tool as filter string). The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score 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 the tool lists pending actions, with a specific verb and resource. It includes the version and required admin role, distinguishing it from sibling tools like approve/deny which are actions on actions. No other list tool exists among siblings.

  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 'Admin role required', giving a clear prerequisite for usage. However, it does not specify when to use this tool vs alternatives or when not to use it. It lacks guidance on prerequisites beyond role, such as needing existing pending actions.

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

• admin.deny_actionA
  3.7/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description must fully bear behavioral disclosure. It only mentions the admin requirement, but does not describe side effects, result of denial, or whether the action is irreversible.

  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?

  Two short, focused sentences with no redundant information. The version number 'v1.0.0' is minor but not harmful; overall it is 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?

  The tool is simple with two parameters and no output schema. The description states purpose and a key prerequisite, but lacks information about the expected outcome or response format.

  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 no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, meeting baseline but not exceeding it.

  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 'Deny' and resource 'pending action', matching the tool name. It distinguishes from siblings like admin.approve_action and admin.list_pending_actions by specifying a different operation.

  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 explicitly includes 'Admin role required', which guides usage. However, it does not provide when-not-to-use or contrast with sibling tools beyond implicit distinction.

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

• github.issues.createA
  3.7/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  The description explicitly discloses that the action is not immediate and requires admin approval, which is critical behavioral information beyond the schema. No annotations are present, so the description bears full responsibility and delivers well.

  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?

  Two sentences with zero waste: the first states the core action, the second adds essential behavioral context. Information density is high and front-loaded.

  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?

  While the description covers the key behavioral aspect of pending approval, it omits return value information (no output schema) and any mention of permissions or error conditions. For a create tool with six parameters, additional context would be helpful but not severely lacking.

  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 input schema itself fully documents all parameters. The description adds no additional parameter-level details, meeting the baseline expectation of 3.

  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 uses a clear verb-resource pair ('Create a GitHub issue') and distinguishes the tool by noting it creates a pending action requiring admin approval, which differentiates it from typical issue creation tools.

  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. Sibling tools are all admin or comment/pr operations, so no direct alternatives exist, but the description still fails to contextualize its usage or prerequisites.

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

• github.pr.openA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that the action is pending and requires admin approval, which is key behavioral information beyond the 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?

  Two sentences efficiently convey purpose and key behavioral trait. Minor version number is acceptable and does not detract from clarity.

  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?

  The description is adequate for purpose and behavior but does not mention output or response format, which would be helpful given no output schema.

  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 baseline 3. The description does not add meaning to parameters beyond schema definitions.

  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 opens a GitHub pull request and specifies it creates a pending action requiring admin approval. This is distinct from sibling tools like github.issues.create or admin actions.

  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 does not explicitly guide when to use this tool vs alternatives beyond mentioning admin approval. It implies usage for creating PRs but lacks exclusions or context for sibling tools.

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

• admin.approve_actionA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations provided. Description indicates it executes a pending action (write operation) but omits details about return values, side effects, or failure modes. Basic behavior is clear but incomplete for a mutation tool.

  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?

  Two efficient sentences—first states primary action, second adds prerequisite and uniqueness. No wasted words, front-loaded with core purpose.

  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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, prerequisite, and exclusivity. Lacks return behavior but is mostly complete for the complexity level.

  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% and the parameter 'actionId' has a description. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline.

  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?

  Specifically states 'Approve and execute a pending action' and notes it is the 'ONLY way to execute GitHub write operations,' clearly differentiating from siblings like admin.deny_action.

  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 'Admin role required' and positions this as the exclusive method for GitHub write operations, providing clear context. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance, but the sibling list supplies alternatives.

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

• github.comment.addA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It clearly discloses that the tool creates a pending action requiring admin approval, which is a critical behavioral trait. However, it does not mention any return values or side effects beyond approval.

  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 extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences that convey the purpose and a key behavioral note. No unnecessary words or repetition.

  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?

  While there is no output schema, the description adequately explains the tool's purpose and the pending-approval behavior. The sibling tools provide context for the approval workflow, but the description could be improved by mentioning what the tool returns or how to reference the created action.

  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 descriptions for all four parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, earning a baseline score of 3.

  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 adds a comment to a GitHub issue or pull request, with a specific verb and resource. The mention of 'v1.0.0' and 'pending action that requires admin approval' distinguishes it from sibling tools like github.issues.create or github.pr.open, which create issues or PRs rather than comments.

  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 indicates that the action is created as a pending action requiring admin approval, implying that the comment will not be immediately visible. This provides context for when to use the tool, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like editing a comment or replying directly.

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