Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• search_imagesA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the return fields, which gives insight into the output. However, it does not mention potential side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or behavior for empty results. For a read-only search tool, safety is implied but not explicitly stated.

  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 fluff. It effectively communicates the action and expected output in a compact format, earning its place.

  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?

  The tool is simple (2 params, no output schema), and the description covers the core purpose and the return fields, which is essential since no output schema exists. It lacks some guidance on limits or error behavior, but for a basic search tool, it is largely complete.

  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 baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema: 'query' is described similarly, and 'limit' is already well-documented in the schema. The description adds no extra parameter semantics.

  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 states a specific action: 'Search Docker Hub images by keyword.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_image_stats and batch_image_stats, which focus on statistics rather than search. The list of return fields (name, namespace, etc.) further clarifies the tool's purpose.

  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 keyword-based searches but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use. For instance, it does not say 'use get_image_stats for statistics rather than search.' The context is clear enough to infer, but no exclusions or alternative tool references are provided.

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

• get_publisher_imagesA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden. It discloses default and max result limits, but the phrase 'List all images' is misleading given the 500 max. It does not mention read-only nature, pagination, or rate limits, leaving some transparency 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, and every sentence earns its place. No wasted words.

  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?

  With no output schema, the description would benefit from explaining the return structure or how to handle more than 500 results. The 'all images' claim conflicts with the explicit limit, leaving a completeness gap.

  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 coverage is 100%, so the schema fully describes both parameters. The description adds no extra parameter detail; it only restates the default and max already present in 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 states a specific action ('List all images') on a specific resource ('publisher/namespace on Docker Hub'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_images. It is specific and 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?

  It provides clear use-case context ('auditing an organisation's image catalog'), but does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when to prefer a sibling tool. This is clear context without full when/when-not guidance.

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

• batch_image_statsA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: parallel execution, a maximum of 100 images, and the output format (a summary table with pulls, stars, and status). It does not mention auth or error handling, but for a metadata lookup these are not critical.

  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 core purpose, then includes input format and output details. Every sentence earns its place, with no extraneous information.

  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 one parameter and no output schema, the description covers operation, constraints, input format, and return summary. It omits error behavior, but that is not essential for a batch lookup. It is sufficiently complete given the tool's simplicity.

  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 the single parameter at 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value with concrete examples (['nginx', 'python', 'grafana/grafana']) and clarifies the expected list format, which goes beyond the schema's basic 'List of Docker image names (max 100)'.

  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 a specific action ('batch lookup metadata') on a specific resource (Docker Hub images), with a scope limit ('up to 100') and parallel execution. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_image_stats (single image) and search_images.

  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 explains to pass a list of image names and gives an example. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the batch nature and sibling tool names imply when to use this tool. It lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance.

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

• get_image_statsA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses useful behavior: it accepts both 'library/nginx' and 'nginx' formats with auto-prepending, and lists return fields. However, it does not explicitly mention read-only status or error conditions, though these are minor for a metadata fetch.

  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 concise sentences front-load the purpose and add only essential details (format handling and return fields). No waste or redundancy.

  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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description fully covers input formats and return fields, making it complete for the agent to use 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 input schema already documents the parameter with examples, but the description adds the key behavior of auto-prepending 'library/' and the two accepted formats, providing meaningful semantic context 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?

  Clearly states it fetches metadata for a single Docker Hub image, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like batch_image_stats by emphasizing 'single' and listing specific return fields.

  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 (single image metadata) and implies batch use for multiple images, but does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool. It is effective but lacks explicit exclusion guidance.

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