Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• read_moreB
  3.1/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It correctly indicates a read operation ('Retrieve'), implying non-destructive behavior. However, it does not disclose details like idempotency, rate limits, or whether the slice is inclusive/exclusive. The minimal disclosure is adequate for a simple retrieval 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?

  The description is a single sentence that clearly states the action and key concept. It is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words. Every part earns its place.

  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 lack of output schema, zero parameter documentation, and no annotation coverage, the description is too brief. It does not cover return value details, error conditions, or constraints on offset/length. The tool is simple but more context (e.g., default length, max offset) would improve completeness.

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

  Parameters1/5

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

  The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not explain any parameter semantics. It only mentions 'character offsets' without specifying which parameters (offset, length) that applies to. No guidance on defaults, range, or format for any parameter.

  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 specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('slice of a stored full output') and mentions the key parameter ('handle' and 'character offsets'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'invoke_tool' or 'search_tools' which serve different purposes.

  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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the purpose is clear, the description does not mention prerequisites, typical use cases, or when not to use it. The absence of any when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance limits its helpfulness.

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

• search_toolsA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that results include full input schemas and mentions searching across downstream servers. However, it does not discuss potential side effects, failure modes, or performance implications. For a read-only search tool, this is adequate but not comprehensive.

  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, efficiently communicates purpose, output, and usage hint. No wasted words, front-loaded with key 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 tool's simplicity (2 params, no output schema), the description covers the main aspects: what it searches, what it returns, and when to use it. Missing details about default/limit behavior and result format, but generally complete for its 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 50%: the 'query' parameter is described fully, but 'limit' has no description in schema nor in the tool description. The description adds context for the overall search behavior but does not explain the 'limit' parameter, which is only partially compensated.

  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?

  Description clearly states verb 'search', resource 'tools across downstream servers', and scope 'by keyword'. It also specifies the return value 'full input schemas for matches'. This distinguishes it from siblings like list_tool_categories (which lists categories) and invoke_tool (which invokes a tool).

  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 'Use before invoke_tool', providing clear contextual guidance. However, it does not mention when not to use it or provide alternative tools, so it's not a full 5.

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

• invoke_toolA
  4.1/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that large outputs are compressed and that full output is retrievable via read_more with the returned handle. No contradiction with annotations since none exist.

  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?

  Single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose and adds key behavioral detail. No wasted words.

  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 no output schema, the description covers the essential output behavior (compression and retrieval). Lacks error handling or prerequisites, but sufficient for the tool's role as an invocation proxy.

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

  Parameters2/5

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

  Schema has 3 parameters (args, tool, server) with 0% schema description coverage. The description does not explain any parameter semantics, leaving the agent to infer from names alone.

  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 it invokes a tool on a downstream server, distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_tool_categories and search_tools. Also explicitly mentions the companion tool read_more for retrieving compressed output.

  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?

  Implies when to use (to invoke a tool on a server) and how to handle large outputs via read_more. Does not explicitly state when not to use or compare to other invocation methods, but provides clear context.

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

• list_tool_categoriesA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations provided, so description carries burden. Describes output content and gives an example ('memory (9 tools)'), adding transparency about what to expect. No mention of side effects or auth, but read-only nature implied.

  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, front-loaded with purpose, no extraneous words. Every sentence adds value.

  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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, description is sufficient: defines purpose and gives usage guidance. Including an example of downstream server adds helpful context.

  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?

  No parameters, schema coverage 100%. Description adds value by explaining what the list includes (status, tool counts, capability categories), beyond the empty schema.

  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 verb 'List' and resource 'downstream MCP servers' with specifics (status, tool counts, capability categories). Differentiates from siblings by noting it's a high-level overview to call first.

  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 advises 'Call this first for details', indicating it's a preliminary step. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tools, but context is clear.

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