Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• publish_dirA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the folder must contain index.html or .md/.pdf files and that they are served through the reader, which is useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't mention whether publishing overwrites an existing site, whether the operation is reversible, or any rate limits or auth requirements.

  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 sentences with no wasted words. The core action and return value are front-loaded, and the content requirements are stated efficiently.

  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 publish operation with 2 parameters and no output schema. It explains what the tool does and the folder content requirements. However, it lacks details about what happens when 'site' is omitted (creates a new site) versus when it's provided (overwrites?), and doesn't describe the URL format or any side effects.

  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%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds context about the folder content requirements but doesn't add meaning beyond the schema for the 'path' and 'site' parameters themselves. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

  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 verb 'publishes', the resource 'a folder of static files', and the outcome 'returns its URL'. It also specifies the required content (index.html or .md/.pdf files), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like publish_files.

  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 implies when to use this tool: when you have a folder of static files with an index.html or markdown/PDF files. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the content requirements provide clear context for when this tool is appropriate versus publish_files.

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

• list_sitesA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It indicates the operation reads the account's sites and is scoped to the account, implying a read-only list. However, it does not disclose return format, pagination, or potential errors, so it is adequate but not rich.

  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 entire description is one short, front-loaded sentence that says exactly what the tool does and why someone would use it. No filler or redundancy.

  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 zero-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and connects it to the sibling tools. It could be slightly more specific about output format, but the use case is well expressed, making this adequate for an agent to invoke 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?

  There are no parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter-level information, but with zero parameters a baseline of 4 is appropriate, and the description still clarifies what the tool returns in terms of publishing sites.

  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 verb 'lists' and the resource 'sites on this account', distinguishing it from the sibling publishing tools by framing it as a prerequisite for publishing. It gives a concrete purpose rather than just repeating the name.

  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 gives clear usage context through the phrase 'so a publish can go to one of them', telling the agent when to use it (before a publish operation). It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough that the agent can infer it is not a publishing tool.

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

• publish_filesA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses useful behavioral facts: the site's URL is returned, a single file becomes the site itself, and .md/.pdf files are served through the viewer. However, it leaves out any effects on existing sites (create vs. overwrite) and does not clarify the contradictory statement about PDFs being text-only, which reduces transparency.

  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?

  Three compact sentences with zero filler. The most important information is front-loaded, and supporting details are grouped logically. Despite minor ambiguity in the 'Text only' phrase, the description is efficiently structured and easy to parse.

  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 there is no output schemacomm, the description usefully explains both the return value (URL) and the acceptance criteria. It still omits some call-relevant behavior, such as overwrite semantics and whether multiple files create a multi-page site, but for simple invocations it contains what an agent needs.

  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 covers both parameters descriptively, but the description adds behavioral semantics beyond the schema, such as accepted source types and how a single file maps to the site root. It does not compensate for all parameter nuance (e.g., what happens when an existing site is named), but it meaningfully enriches the schema's parameter descriptions.

  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 ('Publishes'), names the file types, explains the output ('as a site', 'returns its URL'), and gives concrete behavior examples (index.html, single .md/.pdf). This clearly communicates what the tool does and how it differs from a generic file upload.

  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 routing guidance: text files belong here, whereas a PDF or an image must go through publish_dir. This identifies the alternative sibling tool. However, the 'Text only' clause is worded confusingly (since PDFs were just mentioned as supported), slightly muddying the boundary.

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