Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get_itemA
  3.7/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Labels the operation as 'Read-only', which is a key behavioral trait. With no annotations provided, this adds some transparency, but lacks details on auth, error handling, 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.

  Conciseness5/5

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

  Single sentence with zero waste. Front-loaded with action and resource. Every word earns its place.

  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?

  Adequate for a simple retrieval tool. The description covers basic purpose and read-only nature, but lacks information about return format, pagination, or error cases. No output schema is present to compensate.

  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?

  The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all 4 parameters. The description does not add any extra meaning beyond what is already in 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 clearly states the action (get), the resource (single content item), and the method (by id). It distinguishes itself from siblings like list_items (multiple items) and search (query-based).

  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 use when you have an item id, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use compared to alternatives like search or list_items. No exclusion criteria.

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

• describe_modelA
  4/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It describes a read-only operation ('describe') but does not explicitly state idempotency, safety, error behavior, or auth requirements. The description adds minimal transparency beyond stating the function.

  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: first states the function and outputs, second provides usage context. No redundant 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?

  The description covers what the tool does and when to use it. It does not describe error handling (e.g., if model not found) or return format details, but given the simple input schema and no output schema, it is largely sufficient.

  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 100% with one parameter described. The description adds value by specifying that the model name comes from 'list_models', aiding proper use. However, it does not elaborate on format or constraints, so it slightly exceeds the baseline of 3.

  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 specific verbs ('Describe one content model's field schema') and lists concrete attributes (names, types, required, etc.). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_item (data) and list_models (model list) by focusing on the schema structure.

  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 explicitly advises when to use this tool ('Use this to understand the exact shape of the data... instead of fetching the whole API or docs.') and hints at a prerequisite via 'Model name (from list_models)' in the parameter, though it does not mention 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.

• list_itemsA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses read-only nature, which is crucial. Does not mention authentication, rate limits, error behavior, return format, or paging behavior beyond limit default. Adequate but with gaps.

  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 succinctly convey purpose and capabilities. No filler or redundant information. Front-loaded with the primary action.

  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 listing tool with 7 parameters (1 required) and no output schema, the description covers the main capabilities. Lacks pagination behavior (skip not mentioned) and return structure, but overall sufficient given the tool's simplicity and high schema coverage.

  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 high (86%), baseline 3. Description adds modest value by labeling filter as 'Mongo-style', sort as 'JSON', and limit with default, but mostly duplicates schema descriptions. No new parameter semantics beyond what schema provides.

  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 'List content items for a model' with a specific verb and resource. Distinguishes from sibling tools like describe_model (describe), get_item (single item), list_models (models list), and search (cross-model search).

  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?

  Implicitly clear when to use (listing items of a model with optional filters). Lacks explicit when-not or alternatives though. The sentence 'Read-only' provides context but no exclusionary guidance.

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

• list_modelsA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  The description explains that it returns a one-line summary for each model, but it does not elaborate on other behavioral aspects such as sorting, filtering, or authentication requirements. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden, and while sufficient, it lacks depth.

  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 consists of two concise sentences. The first sentence states the action and result, and the second provides usage guidance. All words are meaningful and front-loaded.

  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 has no parameters or output schema, the description adequately covers its purpose and usage. It could be slightly enhanced by describing the output structure, but it is sufficiently complete for the agent to understand its role.

  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 does not need to add parameter meaning beyond the schema, which is complete. No additional value is expected.

  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 identifies the tool's action ('List all Cockpit content models') and the resource ('collections & singletons'). It also distinguishes itself from siblings like describe_model (detailed view) and list_items (items within models) by providing an overview with one-line summaries.

  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 phrase 'Start here to see what content exists' provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool: as an initial step for exploration. While it does not explicitly exclude other scenarios or mention alternatives, the context makes the usage clear.

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

• searchA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Reveals case-insensitive substring matching. No annotations, so description carries full burden. Lacks details on limits, pagination, or error conditions.

  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, no fluff. Front-loaded with 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?

  Adequately covers search method and parameters. No output schema, but return type is implicit. Could mention that matching items are returned.

  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 100% with descriptions. The description adds behavioral nuance (case-insensitive substring) beyond schema, reinforcing parameter semantics.

  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 'Find items in a model whose given text field matches a query' with specific verb and resource. Distinguishes from siblings like get_item (needs id) and list_items (lists all).

  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 usage context: 'Handy when you know the content but not the id.' Implies when to use, but does not list alternatives or exclusions.

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