Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• analyze_package_changeA
  4.7/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true. The description adds supported ecosystems (npm, pypi) and what analysis sections are returned, providing complete behavioral context without contradicting annotations.

  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 (3 sentences), front-loads the purpose and outputs, and uses efficient examples. No redundant information.

  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 4 required parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains what the output contains, supported ecosystems, and relationship to sibling tools, making it fully complete for agent usage.

  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 description coverage is 100% with each parameter already described. The description adds example values and usage context but does not significantly extend beyond the schema's own descriptions for each parameter.

  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 it analyzes a single dependency version change and returns a structured upgrade analysis with specific outputs (semver, release notes, breaking changes, etc.). It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool analyze_packages_bulk which handles multiple packages.

  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 tells when to use: 'Use when the user asks about a specific package upgrade', with concrete examples. Also specifies when not to use it and points to the sibling tool for batch analysis.

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

• analyze_packages_bulkA
  4.7/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds behavioral details such as parallelism, the ranking of recommendations, and output breakdown (semver class, security fixes, breaking changes), enhancing transparency beyond annotations.

  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 three sentences, no fluff. It front-loads the primary action and output, then provides usage context and constraints.

  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?

  Given the single parameter with full schema coverage, clear annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the tool's purpose, usage context, limit, and output contents sufficiently for correct selection and invocation.

  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 baseline is 3. The description mentions input sources (Dependabot PR, etc.) but does not add new parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides for each field. Thus no significant addition.

  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 analyzes package upgrades in parallel and returns a unified risk report. It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'analyze_package_change' by focusing on bulk analysis and mentioning parallelism and chunking.

  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 explicitly says 'Use when the user provides many dependency changes from a Dependabot PR, npm outdated output, lockfile diff, or batch upgrade.' It also provides a limit of 50 packages per call, guiding chunking for larger lists.

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