Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• lint_clojureA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It specifies what gets processed (Clojure/ClojureScript/EDN content) and the tool used, but doesn't describe output format, error handling, performance characteristics, or what constitutes successful linting. The description adds some value but leaves significant behavioral aspects undocumented.

  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, efficient sentence that communicates the essential purpose without any wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and uses precise terminology. Every element of the description earns its place by adding meaningful information.

  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 no annotations, no output schema, and 3 parameters with good schema coverage, the description provides adequate basic context but leaves gaps. It explains what the tool does but doesn't describe what users can expect as results, how to interpret linting output, or any limitations of the clj-kondo approach. For a tool with no structured output documentation, more guidance would be helpful.

  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?

  With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds value by providing context about what 'lint' means in this context and specifying the exact tool being used (clj-kondo), which helps users understand the linting approach and standards being applied beyond what the parameter descriptions provide.

  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 with specific verb ('lint') and target resources ('Clojure/ClojureScript/EDN content'), and specifies the implementation method ('using clj-kondo'). It distinguishes itself by naming the exact linter being used, which is helpful even without sibling tools for comparison.

  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 implied usage context by specifying what types of content can be linted and the tool being used, but offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (though no sibling tools exist). It doesn't mention prerequisites, typical workflows, or integration scenarios.

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