Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get_citationsA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the return fields and scope (per note or whole collection) but does not mention potential error cases, pagination, or whether results are exhaustive. It's adequate but not rich in behavioral detail.

  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 long, front-loads the tool's core purpose in the first sentence, and the second sentence gives usage context. No wasted words; every part earns its place.

  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?

  The description explains what the tool returns and when to use it, which is complete for a read-only retrieval tool with three optional filters. It lacks an explicit output schema but describes the return fields (repo, path, line range, claim, permalink). Missing minor details like empty-result behavior, but overall context is complete.

  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 input schema has 100% parameter description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning to the parameters beyond the schema; it mentions repo and path as return fields, not parameter semantics. The schema already documents id, path, and repo filters adequately.

  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 what the tool returns: citation sources (repository, file path, line range, claim, permalink) for a note or the whole collection. It distinguishes itself from siblings like search_notes and get_note by focusing on citations and source verification. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'get', relying on the noun phrase 'Every source of truth' to convey the action.

  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 'Use this to check whether a claim is actually supported, or to find which notes cite a given repository,' giving clear scenarios for use. It does not mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the provided use cases are sufficient guidance for an AI agent.

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

• list_mapsA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits. It discloses an important structural rule ('Each concept note belongs to exactly one map') and implies read-only behavior via the name and purpose. However, it does not describe return format, ordering, or other potential behavior, leaving some gaps for a tool with no annotation support.

  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?

  Three sentences, each contributing distinct value: what the tool shows, when to use it, and a constraint on the data. The first sentence is slightly awkward grammatically but not wasteful. Overall, concise and well-structured.

  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?

  For a parameterless listing tool, the description is quite complete: it explains the output (maps and their concept notes), the intended usage scenario, and a key data rule. However, it lacks explicit mention of the return format (e.g., list vs. tree) and any pagination or limits, which keeps it from a perfect score.

  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 input schema is empty (0 parameters), so the baseline is 4. The description correctly focuses on the tool's purpose and output rather than parameters, which are nonexistent.

  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's function: listing every Map of Content and the concept notes that call it home, effectively providing an overview of the collection's structure. It distinguishes from sibling tools like search_notes and get_note by focusing on the overall map-level structure rather than individual notes.

  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?

  Explicitly states when to use: 'orient before searching' or to answer 'what does this collection cover?'. This gives clear context for when this listing tool is appropriate, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria.

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

• search_notesA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the return type ('matching notes with summaries') and adds critical context about the knowledge base's grounding in pinned repository files and the need to cite permalinks. However, it does not explain query semantics (e.g., case sensitivity, fuzzy matching) or error behavior, leaving some gaps.

  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 and front-loaded with the primary purpose. Each sentence serves a distinct role: purpose, usage, return behavior, data provenance, and citation requirement. It is slightly longer than necessary but all content earns its place, so a 4 is suitable.

  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 tool's moderate complexity and lack of output schema, the description covers the key contextual elements: what it searches, what it returns (summaries), how to proceed (get_note), and why results are reliable (SHA-pinned sources). It does not describe pagination/sorting, but the limit parameter schema covers the former. A 4 reflects solid coverage without being exhaustive.

  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?

  Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully describes all three parameters. The description adds minimal extra meaning for the query parameter ('topic rather than a note id') but does not enhance the type or limit parameters. The baseline of 3 is appropriate given the high schema 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Full-text search across the DPC Zettelkasten.' It clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings by stating 'Start here when you have a topic rather than a note id' and explicitly naming get_note as the follow-up tool, making the differentiation explicit.

  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?

  The description provides explicit when-to-use guidance ('Start here when you have a topic rather than a note id') and names an alternative (get_note) with follow-up direction. It also sets expectations for how to use the results (cite sources), which is actionable guidance for the agent.

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

• get_schemaA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Without annotations, the description needs to carry behavioral context. It discloses the output format (SDL), the scope (the collection), and positions it as a prerequisite for non-trivial GraphQL queries. It doesn't discuss auth or rate limits, but for a zero-parameter read-only schema fetch, this is sufficient.

  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 short sentences, with the primary statement first and a usage hint second. Every word earns its place, making it appropriately sized and front-loaded.

  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?

  The tool is simple (no params, no output schema), and the description gives the purpose, output format, and usage context. It fully answers what an agent needs to know 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?

  The schema defines zero parameters, so there is nothing to document. Baseline for 0 params is 4; the description adds no conflicting info and correctly focuses on the returned 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 returns 'The GraphQL schema for the collection, as SDL.' This identifies the resource (GraphQL schema) and format (SDL), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like graphql which executes queries, and search_notes/get_note which handle notes.

  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?

  It provides an explicit usage context: 'Call this before writing a non-trivial query with the graphql tool.' This tells the agent when to use it, though it does not mention exclusions or alternatives, hence not a 5.

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

• get_noteA
  4.7/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that notes are grounded in a specific repository pinned at commit SHAs, that citations are commit-pinned permalinks, and instructs the agent to cite sources rather than present claims as its own. This is rich behavioral context well beyond a simple fetch.

  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 first sentence front-loads the purpose with a clear verb and resource. The second gives usage context, and the third adds important citation-grounding context. All sentences earn their place with no redundancy.

  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?

  Without an output schema, the description clearly states what will be returned (Markdown body, links/backlinks, citations with permalinks) and when to use it. For a one-parameter lookup tool, this is comprehensive and self-sufficient.

  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?

  Schema coverage is 100% with a clear description of the single id parameter and examples. The tool description does not add further parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

  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 uses a specific verb 'Fetch' plus resource 'one note' and enumerates its contents (Markdown body, links/backlinks, citations with permalinks). It clearly distinguishes from siblings by stating it should be used after search_notes or list_maps provides an id.

  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 instructs when to use the tool: 'once search_notes or list_maps has given you an id', providing a clear workflow order relative to siblings. It implies that search/list tools are for discovery and this tool is for retrieval, and adds a behavioral expectation about citing sources.

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

• graphqlA
  4.9/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It clearly states 'Read-only' and 'no mutations, fragments, or variables,' plus it embeds the entire GraphQL schema, which reveals the full range of queries and return types. This is comprehensive transparency that outperforms typical tool descriptions.

  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 long due to the embedded schema, but the opening sentence is front-loaded and clear, and the structure (intro, constraints, examples, schema) is logical. Every section earns its place; it could be slightly more concise, but the length is justified by the complexity of a GraphQL API.

  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 a single string parameter and no output schema, this description is exceptionally complete. It covers purpose, usage, constraints, and the complete query API. An agent can confidently construct valid queries and anticipate the shape of results based on the schema. There are no critical gaps.

  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 only defines 'query' as a string. The description compensates richly by providing the complete GraphQL API schema and multiple examples of valid query strings. This gives the agent a deep understanding of how to formulate the query parameter, far exceeding the minimal schema description.

  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 opens with a clear verb+resource: 'Run a GraphQL query against the collection's structure.' It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly stating 'Use this for questions the other tools cannot answer' and listing specific examples such as 'which notes are most connected' and 'which repositories ground the most claims.' This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and well-differentiated.

  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?

  The description gives explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives: 'Use this for questions the other tools cannot answer.' It also provides constraints on usage: 'Read-only: no mutations, fragments, or variables. Inline argument values.' This tells the agent both the appropriate scenarios and the operational boundaries, going beyond simple context.

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