Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• maestro_list_tasksA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool lists tasks owned by the authenticated user, which implies a read-only operation, but it does not mention sorting order, pagination, or other behavioral details. The name 'list_tasks' and the description convey the core behavior, but additional context would improve transparency.

  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, clear sentence with no redundant information. It is front-loaded with the main action and resource, making it easy to parse.

  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?

  Given that there is an output schema and the tool is a straightforward list operation, the description is complete enough for basic understanding. It lacks some context like sorting order or use-case hints, but the simplicity of the tool does not require much more. The schema fills in parameter details.

  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 covers all three parameters with descriptions (limit, created_at_max, created_at_min), so the schema already provides parameter semantics. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema documents, aligning with the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

  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 ('List') and the resource ('recent Maestro tasks owned by the authenticated user'). It effectively distinguishes itself from sibling tools like maestro_get_task (single task retrieval) and maestro_create_video (creation).

  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 implies usage for listing tasks but does not explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. It says 'recent' and 'owned by the authenticated user,' which gives some context but no direct comparison to other tools.

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

• maestro_get_taskA
  4.1/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. The verb 'Get' clearly implies a read-only operation, and it mentions 'live progress' suggesting polling. However, it doesn't explicitly state side-effect-freeness, error behavior, or rate limits. It provides baseline transparency but lacks depth.

  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 sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, and contains no filler. Every word adds value.

  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 simple get-by-ID tool with one parameter and an output schema present, the description sufficiently states what it does and what it returns. It is complete for the tool's complexity and relies appropriately on the output schema for return details.

  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 already covers the task_id parameter fully (100% coverage), with a clear description 'Task ID returned by maestro_create_video.' The tool description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the 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 uses the specific verb 'Get' with a clear resource ('live progress and final outputs for one Maestro video task'). It explicitly scopes to a single task, distinguishing it from siblings like 'maestro_list_tasks' (listing) and 'maestro_create_video' (creating).

  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 phrase 'for one Maestro video task' clearly implies this is for a single task, contrasting with the sibling list tool. It does not explicitly state 'when not to use' or name alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent to decide.

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

• maestro_create_videoA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key asynchronous behavior: the call returns immediately with a task_id, and results are obtained by polling maestro_get_task. This adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema, though it does not mention expected duration, failure modes, or resource requirements.

  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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by the async flow. Every sentence adds value and there is no redundancy or fluff.

  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?

  Given the tool's complexity (13 parameters, async execution, multiple output artifacts), the description sufficiently explains the overall flow and points to the output schema. It does not need to detail return values due to the output schema, and the schema-rich parameters fill the remaining context. It is complete enough for the agent to invoke correctly.

  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 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add extra meaning about specific parameter semantics beyond the schema, mentioning only 'language variants' which is already covered by the 'langs' parameter description.

  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 specific verbs ('Create', 'iterate') with the resource ('Maestro video') and clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings by stating that monitoring is done via maestro_get_task. It is unambiguous about the tool's role in the video creation workflow.

  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?

  It explicitly directs the user to use maestro_get_task for monitoring and retrieving outputs, providing clear guidance on the follow-up action. It does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or alternative use cases for list_tasks, but the context is sufficient for the agent to choose correctly.

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