Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• list_popular_promptsA
  3.6/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses sorting criteria (usage and votes) but omits other behaviors like pagination, output format, authentication requirements, or rate limits.

  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 very short and front-loaded with the purpose. The 'Args' section is clear but could be more structured. No unnecessary text.

  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?

  For a simple list tool, the description misses output details (what fields are returned) and behavioral context (authentication, pagination). It is adequate but has clear gaps.

  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?

  Schema coverage is 0%, so the description compensates by explaining 'limit: Max results (default: 10)', adding semantic meaning beyond the schema's type and default.

  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), resource (popular prompts), and criteria (by usage and votes). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_prompt (single prompt) and search_prompts (searching).

  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 retrieving trending prompts but does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like search_prompts. No why/when-not guidance is provided.

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

• get_promptA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavior. It states 'Returns the full prompt text and metadata', which is adequate but does not mention any side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits. Minimal but acceptable for a simple read operation.

  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 concise with two short paragraphs, each sentence adding value. No redundant information, and the structure is front-loaded with the 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?

  Given the tool's simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the core function and parameter source. It is mostly complete, but could clarify return structure or mention that the ID must be valid.

  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?

  With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds minimal value by stating 'prompt_id: Prompt ID (from search_prompts)', clarifying the source. However, it does not explain format, constraints, or examples, so it only partially compensates.

  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 'Get a specific prompt by ID' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like search_prompts (list) and list_popular_prompts (popular prompts).

  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 by mentioning 'prompt_id: Prompt ID (from search_prompts)', suggesting it is used after searching. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and does not mention alternatives.

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

• share_promptA
  3.8/5.0
  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. It states the action (share, add to library) but does not disclose side effects, permanence, moderation, or required permissions, leaving significant behavioral gaps for a write operation.

  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 concise: a two-line summary followed by a clear argument list. Every sentence is essential, and the structured format aids readability.

  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 adequately covers parameter semantics but misses overall behavioral context such as expected response, idempotency, authentication requirements, or whether duplicate prompt_ids are handled. Given the tool's complexity (7 params, no output schema), more context is warranted.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters5/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates fully by providing meaningful examples and format hints for each parameter (e.g., prompt_id example, tags JSON format, category options), which the schema lacks.

  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 'Share' and the resource 'a prompt with the community', differentiating from siblings like get_prompt, list_popular_prompts, etc., which are read-only operations.

  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 contributing prompts but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., search_prompts to find existing prompts) or when not to use it.

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

• rate_promptA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  The description explains the action (upvote/downvote) and parameter meanings, but with no annotations, it does not disclose behavioral details like reversibility, authentication requirements, or side effects (e.g., public visibility of votes).

  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 concise (two sentences plus parameter list), front-loaded with the purpose, and contains no redundant or extraneous information.

  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 simplicity of the tool, the description adequately covers purpose and parameters. However, it lacks details on return value or prerequisites (e.g., prompt existence), but these are minor for a rating action.

  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 description adds meaning beyond the schema: 'prompt_id: Prompt ID to rate' and 'upvote: True = thumbs up, False = thumbs down'. With 0% schema coverage, this provides necessary semantics for both parameters.

  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's purpose: 'Rate a prompt — upvote if it worked well, downvote if not.' It uses a specific verb ('rate') and resource ('prompt'), and is easily distinguishable from siblings (get, list, search, share).

  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 context ('Helps the community find the best prompts') but lacks explicit guidance on when to use vs. alternatives, such as whether to use this for personal or community prompts, or any exclusivity rules.

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

• search_promptsA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations provided, so the description carries the burden. It mentions 'tested, community-rated prompts' hinting at result quality, but lacks details on pagination, ordering, or error handling. Adequate for a read-only search.

  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?

  Extremely concise and well-structured: purpose first, then parameter descriptions with examples. No unnecessary words, every line earns its place.

  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?

  Covers essential aspects for a simple search tool: purpose, usage, and parameter details. Lacks output format or result count info, but acceptable given no output schema and low complexity.

  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?

  With 0% schema coverage, the description compensates by providing examples for query and listing allowed categories for category. However, it doesn't confirm if the categories are exhaustive or if additional free-text is allowed.

  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?

  Clearly states the tool searches the prompt library by keyword or category, with specific examples. The purpose is distinct from siblings like get_prompt (single prompt retrieval) and list_popular_prompts (trending prompts).

  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?

  Implies usage for finding prompts via search terms or categories, but does not explicitly state when to use alternatives or exclusions. The sibling context is available but not integrated into the description.

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