Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• list_agentsA
  4.9/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  With no annotations, the description fully carries the transparency burden. It discloses the tool's read-only nature, the specific information returned (directory confinement, write/shell enablement, step and timeout budgets), and its behavior when NVIDIA_API_KEY is missing. This is rich behavioral detail.

  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 compact yet comprehensive, with each sentence earning its place. The first sentence states purpose, the second gives usage context and behaviors, and the third adds the API-key check nuance. It is front-loaded and free of redundancy.

  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?

  Despite the tool's simplicity, the description covers purpose, usage timing, output expectations, and edge-case behavior (missing API key). Since an output schema exists, the description need not detail return values, and it sufficiently covers the operational 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?

  The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately avoids inventing parameter semantics and instead clarifies what the tool outputs, which is consistent with a no-argument introspection tool.

  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 opens with 'Show what SubMCP can do right now: profiles, model, sandbox root, and capability gates,' which clearly identifies the tool's purpose as an informational listing. It distinguishes from sibling delegate tools by focusing on capability introspection rather than execution.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines5/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  Explicit guidance is provided: 'Call this before your first delegate in a session, or when a delegation behaves unexpectedly.' This gives clear when-to-use context, and the note about needing no API key frames it as a setup check, effectively differentiating from delegation alternatives.

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

• delegateA
  5/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description fully bears the burden of behavioral disclosure. It details that the sub-agent starts cold with no conversation context, is sandboxed to the root, is read-only unless `write=True`, requires SUBMCP_ALLOW_WRITE for write to take effect, cannot run shell commands without SUBMCP_ALLOW_SHELL, and refuses to read secrets. It also explains the return format and steps taken. This is comprehensive and adds far beyond any annotations.

  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 long but well-structured with clear sections: purpose, usage, task requirements, parameter list, return value, and safety constraints. Every sentence adds valuable information, from examples of good and bad tasks to the explicit mention of the parallel sibling. It is dense and efficient despite its length.

  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?

  Given the tool's complexity (6 parameters, sub-agent execution, environment-dependent behavior, permissions, and sandboxing), the description covers all essential aspects: when to use, how to construct the task, parameter nuances, return value, safety/read-only guarantees, and pointer to the parallel variant. The output schema is optionally present, but the description even describes the markdown report contents, so no gaps remain.

  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?

  Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must fully compensate, and it does. Each parameter is explained with its purpose, default, and guidance (e.g., `profile` options with what each is for, `files` as upfront path hints, `write` with environment caveat, `model` with default, `max_steps` as tool-call budget). The `task` parameter also includes a good/bad example, adding rich semantics beyond the 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?

  The description opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Run a bounded sub-agent on the user's NVIDIA NIM account and return its written report.' This clearly identifies what the tool does and its output. It further distinguishes itself from the sibling `delegate_parallel` by specifying it is for a single delegation, not parallel subtasks.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines5/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  Usage guidance is explicit: 'Reach for this to keep large, mechanical, or exploratory work out of your own context' followed by concrete example use cases. It also provides an exclusion: 'For several independent subtasks, call `delegate_parallel` once instead.' This tells agents exactly when to use this tool vs. alternatives.

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

• delegate_parallelA
  5/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that each task is a cold-start sub-agent with no memory, that concurrency is capped at SUBMCP_MAX_PARALLEL, that sub-agents are read-only with no `write` parameter, and that failures are isolated into a FAILED section without losing other results.

  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 structured with a clear first line, usage conditions, parameter breakdown, and return behavior. Despite being detailed, every sentence adds critical information without redundancy.

  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?

  Given the complexity of parallel sub-agents, the description covers use cases, restrictions, parameters, return format, failure handling, and the relationship to the sibling `delegate` tool. No crucial behavioral aspect is left unexplained.

  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?

  Although the schema has 0% description coverage, the description includes a parameter list that explains each argument: self-contained tasks, profile options, files given to every sub-agent, and model override. This compensates fully for the missing schema descriptions.

  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 runs several independent sub-agents concurrently and returns all reports in one answer. Explicitly distinguishes from the sibling `delegate` by noting it is for splitting work into independent pieces, making it unambiguous.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines5/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  Provides explicit when-to-use with examples, explicitly discourages chaining tasks, and directs users to `delegate` for sequential work and for edits (with write=True). Also specifies that each task must be self-contained.

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