Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• convert_eml_to_bundleB
  3.1/5.0
  Behavior4/5

  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 states that the tool creates a directory, copies the .eml, leaves the source untouched, and returns a JSON structure with specific fields. It also discloses that move/delete modes are rejected. However, it does not mention potential side effects like overwriting existing directories, error handling, or permissions. Still, the core mutation and side-effect profile is clear, warranting a 4.

  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 about 120 words, organized into a brief purpose statement, a note on source_handling, and a return-value summary. It is not excessively verbose and front-loads the core action. Some redundancy exists (e.g., stating the return format), but it remains appropriately sized for the complexity.

  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?

  Despite an output schema (which the description partially covers by naming returned fields), the tool has 15 parameters and 0% schema description coverage. The description only addresses source_handling, leaving the meaning of presets, thread modes, and all boolean flags unexplained. This is a significant gap for an agent to invoke the tool correctly with the full range of options.

  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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only explains source_handling, noting the 'copy' limitation. The other 14 parameters (preset, thread_mode, thread_order, boolean flags) are left undefined. The description adds value for one parameter but fails to clarify the vast majority, leaving agents without essential meaning for the options they may set.

  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's purpose: converting an .eml file into a self-contained bundle with markdown and attachments. It uses a specific verb and resource, but does not differentiate from sibling tools like convert_eml or convert_directory. The purpose is unambiguous, earning a 4 rather than a 5 because it lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

  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 a constraint on source_handling (only 'copy' is accepted over MCP, with guidance to use CLI/API for other modes) but does not explain when to choose this tool over its siblings. There is no mention of convert_eml, convert_directory, or get_diagnostics as alternatives for different scenarios. The guidance is parameter-specific rather than tool-selection-focused.

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

• convert_directoryA
  3.5/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Without annotations, the description adds value by stating batch conversion, recursion, and JSON summary structure, but lacks info on side effects, permissions, or limitations.

  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 concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no fluff, and ends with a helpful alternative reference.

  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 tool's complexity (15 parameters), the description covers only basic behavior and output, leaving the agent without insight into key configuration options.

  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?

  With 0% schema description coverage and 15 parameters, the description provides no explanation for any parameter beyond the directory. Agent has no guidance on presets, dry_run, etc.

  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 tool batch converts .eml files in a directory to Markdown, with recursive behavior, and distinguishes itself from sibling convert_eml by mentioning individual file retrieval.

  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 provides a clear alternative: use convert_eml for individual file content. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention the sibling convert_eml_to_bundle.

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

• get_diagnosticsA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It explicitly states the operation is non-destructive ('without writing permanent files'), and thoroughly describes the return structure: 'Always returns JSON with: state (normal/degraded/review_recommended), selected_body, segmentation_path, client_hint, confidence, fallback_used, and warnings.' It also details conditional keys (stripped_images only when images removed, attachments only when eligible), providing comprehensive insight into output behavior without relying on 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 well-structured and concise: it opens with the core purpose, then provides usage guidance, and ends with a precise list of return keys and conditional behaviors. Each sentence adds value, there is no fluff, and the most critical information (non-destructive, purpose, use cases) is front-loaded.

  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?

  While the description thoroughly explains the return format and gives usage context, it leaves the 13 parameters completely undocumented. Given the tool's complexity (multiple enums, boolean toggles) and the lack of schema descriptions, an agent would not be able to correctly configure parameters without external knowledge. The output schema exists (per context signals) and the description explains return values, but the absence of parameter semantics makes the definition incomplete for correct invocation.

  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 schema has 0% description coverage, and the description provides no explanation of any of the 13 parameters. While the description mentions some related behaviors (e.g., conditional keys for stripped images and attachments), it does not explain what parameters like 'preset', 'thread_mode', 'strip_signatures', or 'include_raw_html' actually control. The agent is left to infer from parameter names alone, which is insufficient for a tool with this many options. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of parameter 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?

  The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Inspect email quality and structure without writing permanent files.' It specifies the verb ('inspect'), the resource ('email quality and structure'), and the non-destructive nature. It also names use cases ('assess conversion quality before committing, or to troubleshoot problematic .eml files'), which effectively distinguishes it from the sibling conversion tools (convert_eml, convert_eml_to_bundle, convert_directory) that perform transformations rather than inspection.

  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 provides explicit usage scenarios: 'Use this to assess conversion quality before committing, or to troubleshoot problematic .eml files.' This gives clear context for when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention the sibling conversion tools as alternatives, relying on the implicit inference that conversion tools are for transforming files while this inspects them. A slight improvement would be naming the alternatives directly, so 4.

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

• convert_emlA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the return value (Markdown with front matter), the optional disk write, and the behavior of presets and flag overrides. However, it does not explain the thread_mode and thread_order parameters, leaving some behavioral aspects unexplained.

  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 concise with six sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and uses a clear bullet-like list for presets. Every sentence adds value without repetition or fluff.

  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 complexity (14 parameters, presets, output schema), the description covers the main purpose, return value, presets, and override logic. It lacks explanation for thread_mode and thread_order, but overall provides sufficient context for most use cases.

  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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning. It explains presets and mentions several flags (signatures, tracking pixels, etc.), and notes that individual flags override presets. However, it omits details for thread_mode, thread_order, and some boolean flags. The presets bundling compensates partially.

  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 tool converts .eml to Markdown with YAML front matter, specifying the output format and the optional file write. It implicitly distinguishes from siblings like convert_directory and convert_eml_to_bundle by focusing on a single file conversion.

  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?

  The description provides clear guidance on preset usage and flag overrides, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus sibling tools like convert_directory or convert_eml_to_bundle, which would help an agent choose correctly.

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