Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• monday_get_board_detailsC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool returns 'board information with items that match the specified criteria,' which hints at filtering behavior, but it lacks details on permissions required, rate limits, error handling, or what 'assigned to me' means in context (e.g., user authentication). For a tool with no annotations, this is insufficient to fully understand its 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 concise and front-loaded, consisting of two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose and output. The first sentence states the action and scope, while the second clarifies the return value. There's no wasted verbiage, making it easy to parse, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., by explicitly separating purpose from behavior).

  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 context: 1 parameter with full schema coverage, no annotations, and an output schema exists, the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic purpose and filtering aspect, but since no annotations are present, it should ideally include more behavioral details (e.g., authentication needs, what 'assigned to me' entails). The output schema likely handles return values, so that gap is mitigated. Overall, it's adequate but has clear room for improvement in behavioral transparency.

  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 'boardId' well-documented as 'The ID of the board to retrieve details for (required).' The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

  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: 'Retrieve detailed information about a specific board including filtered items (assigned to me and ready to start).' It specifies the verb ('retrieve'), resource ('board details'), and scope ('filtered items'), which distinguishes it from generic board retrieval. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'monday_get_board_item_list' or 'monday_get_board_list' beyond mentioning filtered items.

  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 minimal usage guidance. It implies usage when needing board details with specific filtered items ('assigned to me and ready to start'), but it doesn't state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'monday_get_board_list' for a list of boards or 'monday_get_board_item_list' for items without board details. No explicit when-not or alternative guidance is provided.

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

• monday_get_board_listC
  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. It mentions pagination and return fields, but lacks critical behavioral details like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or whether this is a read-only operation (implied but not stated). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

  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 a single, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose and return data. It's appropriately sized for this simple list operation, though it could be slightly more front-loaded by mentioning pagination earlier.

  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 low complexity (2 simple parameters), 100% schema coverage, and presence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and no guidance on usage versus siblings, it leaves gaps that could hinder optimal tool selection.

  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 fully documents both parameters (limit and page). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, meeting the baseline of 3 when schema does the heavy lifting.

  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 ('Retrieve') and resource ('paginated list of boards from your Monday.com workspace'), and specifies what information is returned. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'monday_get_board_details' or 'monday_get_board_item_list', which would require a 5.

  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 'monday_get_board_details' (for specific board info) or 'monday_get_board_item_list' (for items within boards). It also doesn't mention prerequisites or context for usage.

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

• monday_get_board_item_listB
  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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves content but doesn't cover important aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or whether it's a read-only operation. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

  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 front-loads the key action and details. It avoids redundancy and wastes no words, making it easy to parse quickly while conveying essential information about what the tool does.

  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 has an output schema (which likely describes the returned content), the description doesn't need to detail return values. However, with no annotations and a simple but critical operation (retrieving item content), the description could benefit from more behavioral context, such as permissions or error cases, to be fully complete for safe use.

  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 description adds minimal meaning beyond the input schema. It implies the itemId parameter is used to fetch content, but the schema already has 100% coverage with a clear description. Since there's only one parameter, the baseline is high, but the description doesn't provide additional context like format examples or constraints beyond what the schema states.

  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: 'Retrieve detailed content for a specific board item including its ID, name, and parsed description text.' It specifies the verb ('retrieve'), resource ('board item'), and scope ('detailed content'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like monday_get_board_details or monday_get_board_list, which likely retrieve different resources.

  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 sibling tools or contexts where this tool is preferred, such as retrieving item-level details versus board-level information. Without this, users must infer usage from the tool name and description alone.

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

• monday_get_meB
  3.4/5.0
  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 this is a retrieval operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't disclose authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what specific profile details are included. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

  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 front-loads the core purpose ('Retrieve information about the currently authenticated Monday.com user') and adds useful detail ('including profile details'). Every word earns its place with zero redundancy or waste.

  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 has an output schema (which handles return values), no parameters, and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks behavioral context like authentication needs or rate limits. For a simple read operation, it meets basic requirements but could be more informative.

  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 discuss parameters, focusing on the tool's purpose instead. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as the description doesn't need to compensate for any schema gaps.

  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 ('Retrieve') and resource ('currently authenticated Monday.com user'), specifying what information is obtained ('profile details'). It distinguishes from sibling tools that focus on boards/items rather than user data. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with potential alternatives like user lookup by ID.

  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 context ('currently authenticated') suggesting this tool is for accessing the logged-in user's own data. No explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives is provided, and there's no mention of prerequisites or exclusions. The context is clear but lacks sibling differentiation.

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