Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• remove-accountC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Remove' implies a destructive mutation, it doesn't specify whether this operation is reversible, what permissions are required, whether it affects active sessions, or what happens on success/failure. The mention of 'cache' hints at data removal rather than account deletion, but this isn't elaborated.

  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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately scannable and easy to understand.

  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?

  For a destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'remove' entails (e.g., does it delete data, revoke access, or clear local cache?), what the expected outcome is, or potential side effects. Given the complexity of account management and lack of structured context, more detail is needed.

  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% description coverage, with the single parameter 'accountId' clearly documented. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or where to obtain the accountId. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

  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 action ('Remove') and target resource ('a Microsoft account from the cache'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'logout' or 'select-account', which might also involve account management operations.

  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?

  The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., whether the account must be logged in or cached first), nor does it clarify relationships with sibling tools like 'logout' (which might handle session termination) or 'list-accounts' (which could show cached accounts).

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

• select-accountC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states the action without behavioral details. It doesn't disclose what 'select' entails (e.g., sets a default context, requires authentication, has side effects, or returns confirmation), making it vague for safe invocation.

  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, clear sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's apparent simplicity, making it easy to parse quickly.

  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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on what happens after selection (e.g., context change, return value, error handling), which is critical for a tool that likely affects subsequent operations in a multi-account environment.

  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 parameter 'accountId' is documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying selection targets an account, which the schema already covers, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

  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 action ('Select') and the resource ('a specific Microsoft account'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'list-accounts' or 'verify-login' in terms of when selection is needed versus listing or verification.

  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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing to list accounts first), exclusions, or how it relates to siblings like 'login' or 'remove-account', leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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

• logoutB
  3.1/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the action ('Log out') but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this invalidates all sessions, requires specific permissions, affects other tools, or what happens on success/failure. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

  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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loads the essential information without unnecessary elaboration.

  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 this is a mutation tool (logout implies state change) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error conditions, or side effects, leaving significant gaps for agent understanding.

  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 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, earning a baseline score of 4 for tools with no parameters.

  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 action ('Log out') and target resource ('from Microsoft account'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'remove-account' or 'verify-login', which prevents a perfect score.

  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?

  The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'remove-account' (which might delete account data) or 'verify-login' (which checks login status). It also doesn't mention prerequisites such as needing to be logged in first, leaving usage context unclear.

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

• verify-loginB
  3.1/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool checks authentication status but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like what 'status' includes (e.g., logged in/out, token validity), whether it requires network calls, or potential error conditions. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that interacts with authentication systems.

  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, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the core function without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the essential action and resource, making it easy to parse. Every word earns its place, achieving ideal conciseness.

  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 of authentication tools and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the check returns (e.g., boolean status, user details, error messages) or how it integrates with sibling tools. For a tool in this context, more detail is needed to guide effective use.

  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 has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add param details, which is appropriate, but it also doesn't compensate for any gaps since none exist. A baseline of 4 is given as the tool has no parameters to document.

  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 purpose with a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('current Microsoft authentication status'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate itself from sibling tools like 'login' or 'list-accounts', which prevents a perfect score.

  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?

  The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'login', 'logout', and 'list-accounts', it's unclear if this should be used before authentication attempts, to verify session validity, or as a status check. No explicit when/when-not instructions are given.

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

• list-accountsB
  3.2/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the action without disclosing behavioral traits such as whether it requires authentication, returns paginated results, or includes inactive accounts. It's a basic statement that leaves critical operational details unspecified.

  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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without any unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and wastes no space, making it highly concise and well-structured for its purpose.

  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?

  Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate but lacks context on authentication needs, return format, or sibling differentiation. It meets basic requirements but doesn't fully compensate for the absence of structured data.

  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 has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't add parameter details, aligning with the schema's completeness, though it could hint at implicit context like authentication requirements.

  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 verb ('List') and resource ('all available Microsoft accounts'), making the purpose unambiguous. It doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'select-account' or 'remove-account', which would require more specific scope or filtering details.

  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 like 'select-account' for choosing a specific account or 'verify-login' for authentication checks. The description implies a general listing function but lacks explicit context or exclusions.

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

• loginA
  3.6/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the authentication method. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether this persists credentials, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. The description adds minimal context beyond the basic action.

  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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and uses precise technical terminology ('device code flow') without unnecessary elaboration.

  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?

  For an authentication tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what authentication provides access to, what credentials are stored, how long sessions last, or what the tool returns. Given the complexity of authentication and lack of structured data, more context is needed.

  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?

  With 100% schema description coverage and only one optional parameter, the description doesn't need to explain parameters. The schema fully documents the 'force' parameter, so baseline is high. The description focuses appropriately on the tool's purpose rather than parameter details.

  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 specific action ('Authenticate') and target ('with Microsoft'), using the precise authentication method ('device code flow'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'verify-login' or 'logout' by specifying the authentication mechanism.

  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 this tool is for initial authentication, but doesn't explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like 'verify-login' (for checking status) or 'select-account' (for switching accounts). No explicit exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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

• graph-requestA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the ability to target specific accounts without switching (which is useful context), but doesn't address critical behavioral aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what happens with destructive operations (DELETE/PATCH/PUT). For a raw API tool with 7 parameters and no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

  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 well-structured with a clear purpose statement upfront followed by organized documentation sections. While comprehensive, some information (like the permissions reference link) might be more appropriate in annotations rather than the description. Most sentences earn their place by providing actionable guidance.

  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?

  Given the tool's complexity (7 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description provides good basic context but has significant gaps. It explains what the tool does and provides documentation links, but doesn't address authentication requirements, response formats, error handling, or the implications of different HTTP methods. For a raw API execution tool, this leaves the agent without crucial operational knowledge.

  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 all 7 parameters thoroughly. The description adds some value by providing examples of common endpoints and OData query parameters, but doesn't significantly enhance the parameter understanding beyond what's in the schema. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

  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 explicitly states 'Execute a raw Microsoft Graph API request' which provides a specific verb ('Execute') and resource ('Microsoft Graph API request'). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like list-accounts or login by describing its unique capability to make direct API calls rather than managing authentication or accounts.

  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 guidance on when to use this tool: 'Supports any Graph API endpoint' and 'Can target specific account without switching.' It also references the sibling tool 'list-accounts' for obtaining account IDs, creating clear alternatives and prerequisites. The documentation links further clarify appropriate usage contexts.

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