Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• image_editC
  2.1/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the tool modifies files, requires authentication, or has rate limits. It merely states a vague transformation without explaining side effects or safety.

  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 extremely brief (one sentence), which is concise but lacks structure. It front-loads a verb phrase but fails to elaborate on the tool's functionality or parameters. The sentence mixes Chinese and awkward phrasing, reducing clarity.

  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 has 8 parameters, no annotations, and no schema descriptions, the description is grossly insufficient. It does not explain required inputs, optional parameters, expected output (even though an output schema exists), or usage patterns. Critical gaps leave the agent unable to invoke the tool correctly.

  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, the description should compensate by explaining parameters. It only indirectly references 'image_path', ignoring 6 other parameters including 'mask_path', 'size', 'model', etc. No parameter semantics are conveyed.

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

  Purpose3/5

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

  The description states 'Single image reference/edit' and mentions passing a local image to image_generation, giving a vague sense of purpose. However, it does not clearly differentiate from siblings like 'image_generate' or 'image_batch_edit', and the reference to 'Responses image input' is ambiguous.

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

  Usage Guidelines2/5

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

  No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'image_generate' or 'image_multi_reference'. There is no indication of prerequisites, constraints, or exclusions.

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

• image_generateC
  2.6/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations exist; description only mentions backend but lacks information on authentication (api_key parameter), rate limits, or side effects. Minimal behavioral disclosure.

  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 sentence, efficiently stating purpose, but omits essential details, making it too sparse to be truly helpful.

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

  Completeness1/5

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

  With 7 parameters and output schema present, the description fails to explain usage, parameter roles, save behavior, or output format. Severely incomplete.

  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 explanation for any of the 7 parameters. Parameter purposes are entirely implicit from names.

  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 generates images from text and mentions the backend (gpt-5.5 /v1/responses + image_generation), distinguishing it from sibling tools like image_edit and image_batch_edit.

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

  Usage Guidelines2/5

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

  No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like image_edit or image_batch_edit. No prerequisites or context provided.

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

• image_multi_referenceC
  2.7/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations, the description is the sole source of behavioral info. It only mentions generating a new image from local images, omitting side effects, authentication needs, or output details.

  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 with two sentences, front-loading the main action. However, it lacks structure and could benefit from more detail without verbosity.

  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 (7 parameters, no schema descriptions) and an output schema, the description fails to cover essential aspects like authentication or saving behavior, making it incomplete.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters2/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It only loosely refers to 'image_paths' as local images, leaving the other six parameters (like prompt, size, api_key) unexplained.

  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 generates a new image from multiple reference images. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like image_edit or image_generate, which could lead to confusion.

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

  Usage Guidelines2/5

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

  No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are there any exclusions or prerequisites mentioned. The description only states what it does without context.

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

• image_batch_editB
  3.3/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It only mentions that each image is edited independently, but provides no details on parallelization, error handling, rate limits, or side effects. This is insufficient transparency for a batch operation.

  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 extremely concise at two sentences, with no wasted words. The first sentence states the purpose, the second adds procedural detail. It is front-loaded and efficient.

  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 (batch operation, 7 parameters, no schema coverage, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It does not explain behavior like how image paths are processed, parameter effects, or output format, despite having an output schema. A more detailed description is needed for effective use.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters2/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. However, it mentions no parameters whatsoever, offering no additional meaning beyond the parameter names. For a tool with 7 parameters, this is a significant gap.

  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 performs batch editing of single images by calling image_edit for each image. It distinguishes from the sibling image_edit tool which is for single images, so purpose and scope are well-defined.

  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 implies usage for multiple independent edits, but does not explicitly state when to use this versus the alternative image_edit tool. It lacks guidance on prerequisites or scenarios where batch is inappropriate.

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

• server_infoA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, and the description only states that the tool returns configuration and capabilities. It does not disclose any behavioral traits such as read-only nature, required permissions, or side effects. Given the lack of annotations, the description is insufficient to understand the tool's behavior fully.

  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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without 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?

  Given the absence of parameters and the presence of an output schema, the description is fairly complete. It indicates what the tool returns, though it could be more precise about the specific configuration details. However, with the output schema available, the agent can infer the return structure.

  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 input schema is empty with 100% description coverage. The description does not need to add parameter information, and the baseline for zero parameters is 4. The description is adequate for the parameter context.

  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 that the tool returns the current configuration and capabilities of the Codex image generation MCP. The verb '返回' (return) and resource '当前配置和能力' are specific, and the tool is distinctly different from sibling tools which perform image generation/editing.

  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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. However, the context of sibling tools (image generation/editing) implies that this tool is for querying server info, so the usage is somewhat implied but not explicitly guided.

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