Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• list_iso_19650_clausesC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  Without annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention whether the tool is destructive, read-only, requires authentication (beyond optional api_key), rate limits, or any side effects. The return format is described but not behavioral traits.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness3/5

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

  The description is short but uses a docstring format with Args and Returns, which is functional. However, the purpose is not front-loaded; the first line 'ISO 19650-1/-2 clause reference' is vague. The tool would benefit from a more direct opening sentence.

  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 the tool's simplicity (2 optional parameters, output schema present), the description is moderately complete. It mentions return structure and parameter examples, but lacks usage context and behavioral details that would fully inform agent decision-making.

  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 description adds some meaning to parameters by providing examples for query ('e.g., VRM, card number, project ID') and specifying api_key as 'MEOK API key'. However, it does not explain the parameters' format or constraints beyond the schema default values.

  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 states it is an 'ISO 19650-1/-2 clause reference' and the tool name includes 'list', so the action is clear. However, it does not explicitly differentiate its purpose from siblings like check_bim_maturity or validate_bep, though the verb 'list' implies retrieval vs. checking or validating.

  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?

  There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool over siblings. The description merely states it returns a clause reference, leaving the agent to infer usage. No 'when to use' or 'when not to use' hints are provided.

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

• validate_eirC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as side effects, read-only nature, authentication requirements, or error handling. It only states that it returns JSON assessment, which is minimal.

  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 short and front-loaded with purpose. The Args/Returns format is slightly redundant but not overly verbose, and every sentence adds value.

  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 simplicity (2 optional params, output schema exists), the description is incomplete. It lacks context on typical use cases, prerequisites, and differentiation from siblings, leaving the agent unsure when to call this tool.

  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 description adds basic context to parameters (e.g., examples for query and api_key), but with 0% schema coverage, it only partially compensates. It does not explain constraints, formats, or how parameters affect the check.

  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 it is an 'EIR completeness check', identifying the resource and action. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like check_bim_maturity or validate_bep, which also perform validation checks.

  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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The sibling tools suggest similar functionality, but the description lacks context for selection.

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

• check_cde_structureB
  3.1/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, placing full burden on the description. It states the return type (JSON with assessment, references, recommended actions) but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, destructive, or requires authentication (api_key is optional, but no mention of mandatory auth). Missing details on error conditions or side effects.

  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 concise, with a clear one-line purpose followed by parameter and return descriptions. It is front-loaded and avoids unnecessary words. However, the list format (Args:, Returns:) is not ideal for MCP but still functional.

  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, the description provides some context about the return structure (assessment, references, recommended actions) but lacks details on what the validation covers and the exact role of parameters. The existence of an output schema helps, but the description could be more 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?

  With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds crucial meaning: it explains that 'query' can be a VRM, card number, or project ID, and 'api_key' is an optional MEOK API key. This goes beyond the bare schema and helps agents understand usage, though 'MEOK' could be clarified.

  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 'Common Data Environment structure validation' and the return type, indicating a validation tool. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'check_bim_maturity' and 'validate_bep' by focusing on CDE. However, 'structure validation' is somewhat vague, missing specifics on what aspects of structure are validated.

  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 no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like 'check_bim_maturity' or 'validate_eir'. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or scenarios where this tool is appropriate or not.

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

• check_bim_maturityB
  3.2/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, and the description only states it returns JSON. It does not disclose behavioral traits like idempotency, side effects, or authentication requirements. The minimal return type hint is insufficient.

  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 a clear first sentence outlining purpose, followed by a compact docstring. No extraneous information. It is front-loaded and efficient.

  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 is adequate for a simple tool with an output schema (not shown), but lacks usage guidelines and behavioral transparency, which are important for completeness. It covers basic functionality but not decision-making context.

  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 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaningful context: query is an identifier (e.g., VRM, card number, project ID) and api_key is an optional MEOK API key. This compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

  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 assesses BIM maturity against Level 2 requirements, using specific verbs and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools that focus on CDE structure, ISO clauses, BEP/EIR validation.

  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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or typical use cases, leaving the agent with no context for tool selection.

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

• validate_bepB
  3.4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

  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 states the tool returns a JSON with assessment, references, and recommended actions, but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, has side effects, or requires specific permissions.

  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 fairly concise with a clear header line and a structured docstring format. It is front-loaded with purpose and free of unnecessary 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 existence of an output schema, the return value description is adequate. Parameters are clarified, but the tool's validation scope or prerequisites are not detailed, which is partially compensated by the output schema.

  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 description adds meaning beyond the input schema by explaining the query parameter as an 'optional query or identifier (e.g., VRM, card number, project ID)' and noting the api_key is an 'optional MEOK API key'. This is valuable since schema description coverage was 0%.

  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 performs a 'BIM Execution Plan (BEP) completeness check', which is a specific verb and resource. While sibling tool names are distinct, no explicit differentiation is made, but the resource is unambiguous.

  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 provided on when to use this tool versus siblings such as validate_eir or check_bim_maturity. The description lacks context for appropriate usage.

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