Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• list_payplug_docsA
  3.5/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clarifies the scope ('known to this MCP') and implies a read-only listing operation, but does not describe what the returned list contains (titles, URLs, counts) or any ordering behavior. This is adequate but minimal.

  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?

  A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to the tool's purpose and scope, making it a model of concise description.

  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, no-parameter listing operation with an output schema available, the description is largely sufficient. It lacks any mention of relation to siblings, but the low complexity means this is a minor gap rather than a critical omission.

  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 does not need to add parameter detail since none exist, and there is no ambiguity about invocation.

  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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('official Payplug documentation pages known to this MCP'), making the tool's basic function unambiguous. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings, but the list/read/search distinction is easily inferred from the sibling names.

  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 rather than read_payplug_doc or search_payplug_docs. The description gives no context about use cases, exclusions, or alternative selection, so the agent must rely on sibling names alone.

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

• read_payplug_docA
  3.7/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose the key restriction (only docs.payplug.com URLs are accepted), but it doesn't describe behavior on invalid URLs, response format, or other side effects. For a read tool this is a reasonable but not rich 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?

  Two short sentences with no filler; the essential URL restriction is placed second and the purpose is front-loaded. Every word earns 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?

  For a simple one-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description is mostly complete: it states the operation and the URL constraint. It could add a pointer to the sibling tools for URL discovery, but that is not required 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?

  Schema coverage is 0% and the schema only says 'url' is a required string. The description adds the crucial constraint that only URLs under https://docs.payplug.com/ are accepted, which meaningfully clarifies the parameter's allowed value.

  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 ('Read') and the resource ('an official Payplug documentation page'), and the URL restriction further scopes it. It doesn't explicitly name sibling tools, but the read verb naturally distinguishes it from search and list.

  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 URL constraint implies when the tool applies (only docs.payplug.com pages), but the description gives no explicit guidance about using search_payplug_docs or list_payplug_docs as alternatives. Usage context is only implied, not stated.

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

• search_payplug_docsA
  3.8/5.0
  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 the read-only nature, simplicity, and detailed process: fetches configured pages, converts to plain text, ranks by occurrence, and returns excerpts. This gives the agent a clear model of expected behavior, though it does not cover errors or rate limits.

  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 no fluff. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the following sentences add useful behavior detail. Every sentence earns its place.

  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?

  The description adequately explains core behavior and read-only status, and an output schema exists to define return values. However, missing parameter semantics for max_results and lack of explicit sibling usage guidance make it only minimally complete for an agent to confidently invoke the tool in all relevant scenarios.

  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. It refers to 'query terms', which indirectly explains the query parameter, but it never describes max_results, its purpose, or how it controls the number of returned excerpts. This leaves a notable parameter guidance 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 a specific verb and resource: 'Search the configured official Payplug documentation pages.' It also describes the search pipeline and return of excerpts, which differentiates it from sibling tools like read_payplug_doc and list_payplug_docs.

  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 finding relevant snippets via term ranking, and explicitly notes it is 'intentionally simple and read-only.' However, it never mentions when to prefer sibling tools such as read_payplug_doc for full content or list_payplug_docs for enumeration, leaving usage guidance implied rather than explicit.

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