Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• mcp_psql_managerC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It mentions security features (AES-256-CBC encryption, SQL injection protection, input validation) which are valuable behavioral disclosures. However, it doesn't describe mutation consequences (what gets deleted/updated), error handling, performance characteristics, or what happens when actions fail.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness3/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is reasonably concise with two sentences, but the first sentence is overloaded with 10 action names. The security features are mentioned but not integrated with the tool's purpose. The emoji adds character but no functional value. The structure could be improved by separating action listing from security features.

  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?

  For a complex tool with 12 parameters, 10 possible actions, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain return formats, error conditions, or how different actions map to different parameter requirements. The security claims are mentioned but not contextualized within the tool's operation.

  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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 12 parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. It mentions the 10 action values but doesn't explain which parameters are required for which actions or how they interact.

  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 clearly states this is a PostgreSQL Manager that performs 'безопасные операции с базой данных' (secure database operations) and lists 10 specific actions. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on PostgreSQL database operations rather than API or SSH management. However, it doesn't specify what makes it a 'manager' versus just a PostgreSQL tool.

  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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools (mcp_api_client, mcp_ssh_manager). It lists available actions but doesn't explain when to choose specific actions like 'quick_query' versus other query-related actions, or prerequisites for using the tool.

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

• mcp_api_clientB
  3.2/5.0
  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 of behavioral disclosure. It adds value by mentioning security features like URL validation, header sanitization, SSRF protection, and data size limits, which go beyond the input schema. However, it lacks details on error handling, response formats, or rate limits, leaving gaps in behavioral understanding for a tool with multiple parameters and no 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.

  Conciseness4/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and lists key features efficiently in a single sentence. It avoids unnecessary elaboration, but the inclusion of an emoji (🌐) and security details, while informative, slightly reduces conciseness. Overall, it's appropriately sized with minimal waste.

  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?

  Given the complexity of a multi-method HTTP client with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers security aspects and basic actions but lacks information on response handling, error scenarios, or integration context, which are important for an agent to use this tool effectively without structured output guidance.

  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 description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any specific meaning or usage details for parameters beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining 'check_api' or data formats. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage without extra param info.

  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 clearly states the tool performs 'безопасные HTTP запросы' (secure HTTP requests) with specific methods listed (get, post, put, delete, patch, check_api), making the verb+resource combination explicit. However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like mcp_psql_manager or mcp_ssh_manager, which handle different domains entirely, so differentiation isn't needed but the purpose remains clear without being tautological.

  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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or in what contexts it's appropriate. It lists the actions available but doesn't specify prerequisites, when to choose one method over another, or any exclusions, leaving the agent without usage direction beyond the basic functionality.

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

• mcp_ssh_managerB
  3.2/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It mentions security features like 'Защита от command injection, санитизация команд, ограничения безопасности' (protection against command injection, command sanitization, security restrictions), which adds valuable behavioral context beyond the basic action list. However, it doesn't cover other important behaviors like error handling, authentication requirements beyond password, or performance characteristics.

  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 appropriately concise with two sentences: one stating the purpose and listing actions, another describing security features. It's front-loaded with the core functionality. The emoji and security details add value without excessive verbosity.

  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 tool with 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides basic purpose and security context but lacks important details. It doesn't explain return values, error conditions, or how different actions use different parameter subsets. The security mentions are helpful but insufficient for full understanding of this multi-action SSH tool.

  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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 7 parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain how parameters relate to different actions or provide usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

  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 clearly states the tool performs 'SSH операции' (SSH operations) and lists specific actions like setup_profile, list_profiles, execute, system_info, check_host. It distinguishes from sibling tools (mcp_api_client, mcp_psql_manager) by focusing on SSH management, but doesn't explicitly differentiate within its own action types.

  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 provides no guidance on when to use specific actions (e.g., when to use 'execute' vs 'system_info'), nor when to use this tool versus sibling tools. It mentions security features but doesn't explain their practical implications for usage decisions.

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