Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• vaultA
  3.5/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behaviors. It notes that slop_check is read-only, deslop is journaled with confirmation, and delete_folder requires confirm and empty folders. However, it doesn't consistently label actions as read-only or write (e.g., sync_index, undo are mutating but not flagged), and side effects like index regeneration are implied rather than explicit.

  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 a single dense paragraph that front-loads 'Vault maintenance' but quickly becomes a list of actions without visual separation. While information-dense, it could be more readable with bullet points or sections. Each sentence earns its place, but structure is suboptimal.

  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 24 parameters and no output schema, the description covers action semantics, parameter usage, and key constraints for each action. It explains what each action does (e.g., 'regenerate index.md from frontmatter') and which parameters apply. Missing details include the structure of the health report and exact output of manifest read, but overall it's comprehensive for a complex tool.

  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?

  Parameter descriptions in the schema achieve 100% coverage. The description adds value by mapping parameters to specific actions (e.g., 'Used by create_folder, list_folders, and delete_folder actions') and imposing additional constraints (e.g., 'confirm must be true'). This extra context helps agents correctly select and combine parameters.

  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 opens with 'Vault maintenance' and enumerates 11 specific actions with brief explanations, providing a clear overview of the tool's purpose. It distinguishes from sibling tools (graph, note, search) as a maintenance utility, though the high-level purpose is fragmented across actions.

  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 implicitly guides usage by listing available actions and their constraints (e.g., 'delete requires confirm, empty folders only'), but it lacks explicit statements about when to use this tool versus siblings or alternative approaches. The context is clear enough for an agent to infer appropriate use cases.

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

• graphA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations provided, but the description discloses the tool's behavior: it returns both resolved and unresolved outgoing links, paginated backlinks, and depth restriction. It does not mention any destructive actions or permissions, but for a read-only graph tool, the description is transparent.

  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 two sentences, front-loading the output components and constraints. Every word adds value; there is no fluff.

  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 could be more detailed about the structure of the returned data (e.g., how links are organized). It mentions the types of links but not the format, leaving some ambiguity for a complex response.

  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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by specifying that 'path' accepts vault-relative paths, titles, and frontmatter aliases, which is not fully detailed in the schema. This gives the agent useful flexibility hints.

  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 returns a note's link neighborhood, specifying resolved outgoing wikilinks, unresolved outgoing links, and paginated backlinks. It distinguishes from siblings like 'note' (returns note content) and 'search' (full-text search) by focusing on graph connectivity.

  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 mentions depth is limited to 1 and accepted path formats, giving clear constraints. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings, though the purpose is distinct enough that it's implied.

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

• noteA
  4.6/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  With no annotations, the description fully bears the transparency burden. It comprehensively details behavioral traits: what read returns (content, frontmatter, hashes, outgoingLinks), path resolution caveats (except create), update mode specifics (size guard for replace), concurrency detection via expectedRevision, and mutation return values (operationId/undoAvailable). The deprecated expectedHash alias is also noted.

  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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then provides necessary details in a logical flow. It is not overly verbose given the complexity (19 parameters, many conditional). However, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points) for easier scanning.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness5/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a tool with 19 parameters, no output schema, and nested objects, the description is remarkably complete. It covers all actions, path resolution, update strategies, concurrency, return values, and even deprecated fields. No gaps are evident for an AI agent to use the tool correctly.

  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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds significant context beyond the schema, such as the meaning of 'action' values, path resolution rules, preferred update modes, and concurrency usage. This elevates it above baseline but not to a 5 as some parameter-specific details (like max constraints) are already in 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 lists specific actions (read, create, update, delete, rename, frontmatter) on the 'note' resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like graph, search, and vault. The verb+resource combination is explicit and unambiguous.

  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 detailed usage guidance, such as preferring 'patch' or 'replace_section' for updates, explaining path resolution behavior, and advising to pass 'expectedRevision' for concurrency control. However, it does not explicitly compare to sibling tools or state when not to use this tool, which would elevate it to a 5.

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

• searchA
  4.6/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description fully bears the burden. It details full-text search behavior (token-AND with OR fallback, typo correction), pagination (cursor/truncated/nextCursor, stale cursor errors), response flags (incomplete, skipped), and folder exclusions (includeOperational). This exceeds typical expectations.

  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 efficient and well-organized. It starts with the core purpose ('Find notes.'), then systematically enumerates actions with their specific settings. Every sentence provides distinct information without redundancy, and the format is easy to scan.

  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 complexity (11 parameters, 5 actions, no output schema), the description is highly complete. It covers behavior, error conditions, and parameter groupings. It lacks a detailed specification of the response structure (e.g., fields in item objects), but the format parameter and mention of 'compact for index-only results' partially compensate. Overall, it is stronger than typical descriptions.

  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 coverage is 100%, so each parameter has a description. However, the tool description adds significant cross-parameter context (e.g., which actions use which parameters), behavioral details (e.g., stale cursor error), and usage constraints (e.g., 'accepts no other arguments' for tags action). This adds value beyond the schema, justifying a score above the baseline of 3.

  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 finds notes and lists multiple distinct actions (content, by_tags, list, recent, tags), each with a specific purpose. It differentiates from sibling tools (graph, note, vault) by focusing on search and enumeration operations.

  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 when-to-use guidance for each action (e.g., 'prefer 2-3 keywords' for content, 'frontmatter tag filter (AND)' for by_tags). It also explains cursor handling and error cases. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives among sibling tools, but the context makes it clear that search is for finding notes while graph is for relationships and vault for vault-level operations.

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