Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• cache_statusA
  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 full burden. 'Report' implies a read-only operation, and the listed metadata adds context, but it does not explicitly state that the tool has no side effects or whether it reads from a local cache. This is a minor gap.

  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-loaded with the verb and resource, and every word adds value. No redundant phrases or fluff.

  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 simple metadata-reporting tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description lists the key return fields, giving sufficient context. It does not describe error conditions or response format, but these are not critical for such a low-complexity 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?

  The tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing to explain beyond the schema. Baseline 4 for zero-parameter tools 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 'Report cache metadata' with a specific list of fields (last sync time, commit SHA, counts), making it distinct from sibling tools like list_categories or refresh_cache. The verb 'Report' and resource 'cache metadata' are precise.

  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 phrase 'Use to debug sync issues' provides a clear, actionable context for when to invoke this tool. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the guidance is sufficient for a status-reporting tool.

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

• list_componentsA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It states that only summaries are returned with specific fields and explicitly notes 'no HTML payload,' which is a key behavior that prevents misuse. It also mentions pagination, but omits details on ordering, caching, or error behavior. This is solid disclosure for a read-only list tool.

  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 three sentences, with the first sentence stating the core purpose, the second clarifying return payload and directing to an alternative, and the third mentioning the optional filter. No word is wasted, and the key information is front-loaded.

  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 simplicity, the description covers the essential aspects: what it lists, pagination, return format, and relationship to get_component. It lacks an explicit mention of sorting order or error behavior, but for a list operation with a well-defined schema, this is largely adequate. The absence of an output schema is compensated by the explicit list of returned fields.

  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 descriptions already cover category (case-sensitive, matches repo folder) and author (optional handle). The description adds 'pagination' to imply limit/offset and 'filter by author' to reinforce the author parameter. However, it does not explain how pagination works (e.g., offset meaning) or the default/maximum for limit, so the description only partially compensates for the 50% 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 'List components in a specific category with pagination,' clearly specifying the action (list), resource (components), and scope (category). It also distinguishes from the sibling tool get_component by stating 'Call get_component to fetch actual HTML/CSS,' which differentiates this summary-listing tool from the full-payload tool.

  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 clear usage context: it returns summaries only, so agents should use this for browsing listing views. It explicitly directs users to get_component when full HTML/CSS is needed. However, it does not mention alternative listing tools like search_components or list_categories, leaving some ambiguity about when to choose this over those.

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

• get_component_previewA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It reveals that the tool returns a URL (not HTML), that the result requires a browser to view, and explicitly states 'Does NOT fetch HTML.' For a simple tool, this is strong 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.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is three short sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: stating the purpose, giving usage instructions, and clarifying non-behavior and an alternative. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words.

  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 simple tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is quite complete. It states the output (a URL), the source (public uiverse.io), the usage (browser for animations), and the distinction from get_component. It lacks parameter explanations, but that gap is captured in parameter semantics, and the overall description sufficiently covers the tool's purpose and behavior.

  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?

  The schema has 0% description coverage and the description does not mention the id and category parameters at all. It refers to 'a component' but provides no explanation of how to identify it, leaving the agent to infer from the schema's enum and the parameter name. This does not compensate for the missing schema 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 the specific verb 'Return' and names the resource as the public uiverse.io URL for a component preview. It explicitly differentiates from get_component by saying 'use get_component for code,' which makes it clear this tool is for visual previews only.

  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?

  It explicitly states when to use this tool (to see a component rendered in a browser) and when not to (when code is needed, use get_component). This gives clear context for tool selection among siblings.

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

• get_componentA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of transparency. 'Fetch' implies read-only behavior, and the description discloses return contents including a note if Tailwind-based. It does not cover error cases, caching, or side effects, but for a simple retrieval tool this is reasonably 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?

  Two sentences: first states purpose and returns, second gives usage context. No wasted words, front-loaded, and perfectly sized for the tool's simplicity.

  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 simple retrieval tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, returns, and prerequisite usage. It could mention the alternative get_component_preview for preview-only needs, but the current level is complete enough for correct invocation.

  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 description adds 'by category + id' and the return fields, but the input schema already provides a detailed description for id and an enum for category. Schema coverage is 50%, but the id description is rich and the enum defines allowed values, so the description's additional value is moderate yet adequate.

  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's function with a specific verb ('Fetch'), the resource ('full HTML + CSS'), and identification method ('by category + id'). It also enumerates return values (markup, CSS, tags, author, preview URL), distinguishing it from sibling get_component_preview.

  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 to 'Use after browsing with list_components or search_components', providing a clear precondition and context. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to alternatives like get_component_preview, but the guidance is sufficient for correct use.

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

• refresh_cacheA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the main behavior (pull and rebuild) and the return value (commit SHA delta and new total count). It does not mention potential side effects like invalidating cache or performance impact, but the core behavior 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, efficiently front-loaded with the primary action followed by usage guidance and return information. Every sentence earns its place with no 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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, when to use it, and what it returns. It could mention potential side effects or dependencies (e.g., requiring network access), but these are implicit. Given its simplicity, it is sufficiently complete.

  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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter details because none exist; it instead provides context for when to invoke the tool. This is appropriate and does not need compensation.

  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?

  Description states a specific action: 'Pull the latest commits from the uiverse-io/galaxy repo and rebuild the in-memory index.' This clearly identifies the verb, resource, and scope, and distinguishes it from sibling tools which focus on querying or retrieving cached data.

  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?

  Provides clear context: 'Use when you suspect the cache is stale (last sync > 1 week).' This gives a concrete trigger condition. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, though it implicitly relates to cache_status.

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

• search_componentsA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: fuzzy matching, searchable fields (name, tags, author), return type (summaries, not full HTML), and the optional category filter. It also implies ranking via 'top matches.' This is more than minimal and gives a clear picture of the tool's behavior, though it doesn't cover potential edge cases like pagination or sorting details.

  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: two sentences that front-load the core action ('Fuzzy search components'), then provide usage context and a note about the optional filter. Every sentence carries useful information with no redundancy or filler. It is perfectly scoped for the tool's simplicity.

  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 has no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it does, what it returns (summaries), when to use it, and an optional parameter. It does not describe the exact structure of the summaries or any potential side effects, but for a read-only search tool, the level of detail is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke it correctly. Slightly more detail on result ordering or fields would push it to a 5.

  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 covers 67% of parameters (query and category have descriptions). The description adds meaning by clarifying that query matches against name, tags, and author, and that category narrows the search. This directly complements the schema's parameter descriptions. The limit parameter is not explained in the description, but its min/max/default in the schema make it self-explanatory. Overall, the description adds value beyond 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 clearly identifies a specific action ('Fuzzy search'), the resource ('components'), and the search dimensions ('by name, tags, or author'). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_components by noting it returns summaries and is meant for style-based queries. The mention of 'no HTML' clarifies the output format, making the purpose 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 gives a clear use case: 'Use this when the user asks for a specific style like glowing button, glass card, ripple loader.' This provides strong contextual guidance. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or contrast with sibling tools such as get_component_preview or list_components, so it stops short of full alternative/exclusion guidance.

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

• list_categoriesA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It adequately discloses the tool's behavior: it lists all categories and their counts, and the verb 'List' implies a non-mutating read operation. The enumeration of categories adds transparency about expected output, though it does not discuss data source or potential freshness.

  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, front-loaded with the core function, enumerates the useful category list, and closes with usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no wasted verbiage.

  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 zero-parameter tool without an output schema, the description is fully complete. It explains what it does (lists categories with counts), the exact categories, and when to use it. The presence of sibling tools provides additional context, but the description alone is sufficient for an agent to invoke it 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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema is an empty object, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. The description correctly focuses entirely on the tool's output and use case, matching the baseline for parameterless tools.

  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 'List' and the resource 'Uiverse component categories' with their counts. It enumerates the exact categories, distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_components and search_components. The tool's purpose as a discovery mechanism is 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 an explicit 'when' with 'Call this first when you don't know what's available,' positioning it as an initial exploration step. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for subsequent steps or state when not to use it, which keeps it just shy of a 5.

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