Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• query-database-turboC
  2.5/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  The description discloses limitations such as unsuitability for multi-step workflows, limited explanation, and simplistic visuals. However, it lacks information about security (e.g., SQL injection risks), authentication requirements, and whether the tool is read-only. Since no annotations are provided, these gaps are significant.

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

  Conciseness2/5

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

  The description is excessively long, dominated by a table and detailed heuristics. It is not front-loaded with essential information; the actual purpose and parameters are missing. Every sentence does not earn its place, as many are redundant or tangential to defining the tool.

  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 (nested objects, many parameters, no output schema), the description should explain the tool's function, input parameters, and return values. It only covers usage heuristics, leaving the agent without crucial context for invocation. The description is far from complete.

  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 input schema has 4 parameters, with 0% schema description coverage. The description does not mention any parameter, leaving the agent without guidance on what 'prompt', 'celpApiKey', 'databaseConfig', or 'databaseConnectionId' mean or how to use them. This is a critical failure for parameter semantics.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose2/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description focuses on when to use 'Turbo Mode' rather than clearly stating what the tool does. It implies it executes database queries with optimizations, but the primary function is not explicitly defined. The verb 'query' is only in the name, not in the description.

  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 detailed table of heuristics for when to use Turbo Mode, along with a quick mental check and example prompts. It also lists limitations. However, it does not directly compare this tool to its sibling 'query-database' or specify when not to use it in favor of alternatives.

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

• get-schemaB
  3.1/5.0
  Behavior2/5

  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 merely states the tool 'returns the schema map' with no details on side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or error conditions. The behavioral insight 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.

  Conciseness5/5

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

  The description consists of two short, front-loaded sentences. The first states the purpose, the second provides usage guidelines. Every sentence is necessary and concise, with no wasted words.

  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 complexity of the input schema (nested databaseConfig object, three parameters, no output schema), the description is far from complete. It does not explain the return format, how parameters influence results, or common pitfalls, leaving significant gaps for the agent.

  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 three parameters (apiKey, databaseConfig, databaseConnectionId), the description adds no meaning to any parameter. It fails to explain their purpose or usage, leaving the agent without guidance on how to invoke the tool correctly.

  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 the tool 'returns the schema map for the database' with a clear verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate itself from sibling tools like 'get-index-map' or explain what a schema map is, missing the highest level of distinction.

  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 says 'Only use this tool after previous attempts fail, or when specifically requested,' providing clear context on when to use it. It does not mention when not to use it or alternative tools, so it lacks exclusions.

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

• get-index-mapB
  3.3/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided. The description only says 'Returns' which implies a read operation, but does not explicitly state read-only nature, permissions required, or any side effects. It fails to disclose traits the agent needs to safely invoke the tool.

  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 succinct sentences that front-load purpose and usage. No unnecessary words; 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 three parameters with a complex nested object and no output schema, the description omits critical details on input construction and return value format. The tool is underspecified for an agent to use correctly without additional assumptions.

  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?

  Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no information about the three parameters (apiKey, databaseConfig, databaseConnectionId). The agent has no guidance on what each parameter means or how to construct the nested object.

  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 'Returns the index map for the database' which is a specific verb and resource. However, it does not elaborate on what an index map contains, leaving some ambiguity. It distinguishes from siblings only via usage context, not directly.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines5/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  Explicitly advises to use only after previous attempts fail or when specifically requested, providing clear when-to-use and limiting scope. This is a standout feature.

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

• query-databaseB
  3.3/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries full transparency burden. It discloses capabilities (multi-step analysis, cross-table reasoning, markdown reports) and restrictions (credentials handled server-side). However, it omits behavioral traits like whether it modifies data (assumed read-only but not stated), performance characteristics, or rate limits. Adequate but not comprehensive.

  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 well-structured with sections (Capabilities, When to Use, Effective Prompts, Restrictions) and a clear title. However, it is lengthy and includes redundant guidance (e.g., 'Be specific about metrics'). Some sentences could be condensed. It is front-loaded but not optimally concise for an MCP tool description.

  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 (nested objects, no output schema, 4 parameters), the description is incomplete. It lacks parameter documentation, does not specify return format beyond 'markdown reports', and omits error handling or output schema details. The 'When to Use' is helpful but does not compensate for missing parameter semantics and output context.

  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?

  Schema description coverage is 0%. The description adds no information about parameters beyond the schema. It fails to explain what 'prompt', 'celpApiKey', 'databaseConfig', or 'databaseConnectionId' represent. The only hint is the restriction about credentials, which vaguely relates to 'celpApiKey' and 'databaseConfig.password'. This is insufficient for a tool with 4 parameters and complex nested objects.

  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: 'translates natural language into multi-step SQL analysis plans and executes them against databases.' It explicitly labels itself as for 'complex analytical questions requiring more reasoning,' distinguishing it from sibling 'query-database-turbo' which implies a faster, simpler variant. The verb 'translates and executes' plus the resource 'databases' is specific. Good differentiation.

  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 'When to Use' section provides clear context: complex questions, multi-table analyses, accuracy over speed, detailed insights. It also includes 'Restrictions' warning against sending credentials. However, it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when NOT to use (e.g., simple queries should use query-database-turbo). The guidance is solid but lacks explicit exclusion criteria.

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