Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• create_test_runA
  3.7/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description is the sole source for behavioral traits. It describes the parameters and their meanings but does not disclose side effects, permissions, error conditions, or idempotency. The 'creates' verb implies writing, but no further behavioral context is given.

  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 starts with a clear purpose sentence, followed by an organized list of parameter explanations. While concise, it could be slightly more compact by integrating some parameter details. No wasted words, but the structure is clear and easy to parse.

  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?

  The description covers all parameters adequately but lacks information about the return value of the created test run, error handling, permissions, or any side effects. Given the tool has 7 parameters and no output schema, some additional context would be beneficial for full completeness.

  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?

  The description provides detailed explanations for all 7 parameters, including constraints like 'One of ALL or SPECIFIC' for test_case_inclusion_type, and format requirements for deadline (YYYY-MM-DD). This adds significant value since the schema only contains titles, with 0% description coverage.

  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 'Creates a new test run in a project,' specifying the verb (creates), resource (test run), and scope (in a project). This distinctly differentiates it from sibling tools list_projects and list_test_runs, which are for listing.

  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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implicitly implies use for creation, but lacks guidance on when not to use or any exclusions. The parameter explanations provide some context but not usage boundaries.

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

• list_projectsA
  4.1/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided. The description discloses pagination (100 records per page) and filter behavior, but omits details like authentication, rate limits, or whether sorting is applied. It adequately covers the retrieval behavior but could be more comprehensive.

  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: a one-line summary followed by clear bullet points for arguments. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

  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 no output schema, the description explains pagination and filtering well. It lacks return value details but is otherwise complete for a list tool with well-documented parameters.

  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?

  The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter's purpose and accepted values (e.g., 'filter_status' supports 'active' or 'archived', page size is 100). This adds significant meaning 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 clearly states the tool retrieves a list of projects with filtering. The verb 'Retrives' (though misspelled) and resource 'projects' are specific, and it distinguishes from siblings that deal with test runs.

  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 indicates this tool is for listing projects with filters, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like list_test_runs or create_test_run. It implies usage context but lacks exclusion cues.

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

• list_test_runsA
  4.1/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains pagination (100 records per page), the special filter_incomplete behavior that fetches all pages and returns a trimmed payload, and that page is ignored when filter_incomplete is True. This covers key behaviors.

  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 well-structured with an Args list and front-loaded purpose. While a bit lengthy, every sentence adds value, and it is clear.

  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?

  Without an output schema, the description explains the return format for filter_incomplete but only vaguely mentions 'raw paginated response' for normal usage. More detail on the normal response structure would improve completeness.

  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 compensate. It adds meaningful details for each parameter: e.g., filter_name filters 'containing' value, filter_incomplete fetches all pages and returns trimmed payload, page is ignored when filter_incomplete is True. This fully explains parameter 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 clearly states 'Retrieves list of test runs of a project with support for various filters,' specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like list_projects and create_test_run.

  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 implies usage for listing test runs with filters but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives or 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.