Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• clipboard_searchA
  3.6/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context about pagination ('Follow next_start') and the starting row, which goes beyond annotations. However, it doesn't describe the matching semantics (e.g., substring vs regex) or ordering, though the schema partially covers start.

  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 extremely concise: two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. The second sentence provides a necessary pagination instruction without redundancy. Every word earns its place, and there is no filler.

  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?

  With annotations covering safety and an output schema existing, the description is minimally viable. It explains the search action and pagination, but leaves gaps: no explanation of search matching behavior, the meaning of 'from a row' relative to the start parameter, or the role of the tab parameter. Given the tool has 5 parameters, the description is somewhat lacking.

  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 description coverage is only 20% (only 'start' has a description), so the description must compensate but does not. It does not explain what 'query' should contain, how 'count' affects results, or what 'tab' and 'case_sensitive' do. The phrase 'return matching items' implies query semantics but provides no specifics, leaving users to infer from parameter names.

  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: 'Search CopyQ text history from a row and return matching items.' It specifies a distinct verb ('Search') and resource ('CopyQ text history'), and the scope of starting from a row. This differentiates it from siblings like clipboard_read (reading a specific item) and clipboard_tabs (listing tabs).

  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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives; there is no mention of clipboard_read or clipboard_tabs. The pagination note 'Follow next_start' gives a usage tip for continuing searches, but does not address when to choose this tool over others.

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

• clipboard_tabsA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that the tool returns item counts, which provides useful context about the output, but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as output limits or ordering. Given the annotation coverage, this is adequate.

  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 concise sentence that is front-loaded with the verb 'List'. Every word earns its place, with no 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?

  For a tool with no parameters and an output schema, the description sufficiently explains the tool's purpose and what it returns (tabs and item counts). The presence of the output schema covers return format details, making the description complete.

  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 input schema is empty and there is nothing to explain. Per the baseline rule for tools with no parameters, this scores a 4.

  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 'List' and identifies the resource 'all CopyQ tabs' along with the additional detail of 'item counts', clearly distinguishing it from clipboard_read and clipboard_search which operate on content rather than tab listing.

  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 description clearly implies usage for enumerating CopyQ tabs and their counts, but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use. Since the sibling tools suggest different operations, the guidance is clear enough but not explicit, warranting a 4.

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

• clipboard_readA
  4.7/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context: ordering ('newest first'), pagination ('next_start'), and page semantics ('one page'), which are not captured in annotations and help the agent understand runtime behavior.

  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?

  Three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose first. Each sentence earns its place: definition, parameter examples, and pagination guidance. No redundancy or fluff.

  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?

  Combined with safety annotations and an output schema, the description covers essential aspects: what the tool does, how to invoke it with meaningful parameters, and how to paginate. The mention of 'next_start' implies the output contains a pagination field, filling a key operational gap.

  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 only 33%, but the description compensates for two of three parameters: count is tied to user intent ('when the user says they copied N things') and start is illustrated with an example. The tab parameter is not explained, but its default and sibling context reduce ambiguity.

  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 ('Read') and resource ('one page of CopyQ text history') with scope ('newest first'), clearly distinguishing from sibling tools like clipboard_search and clipboard_tabs. It leaves no ambiguity about the tool's function.

  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?

  Provides explicit parameter usage examples ('Use count=N when the user says they copied N things', 'Use start=4,count=1 for the fifth item') and pagination guidance ('Follow next_start when later rows are needed'). Does not explicitly mention alternative tools, but the context is clear enough for selection.

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