Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• getFileContentsC
  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 retrieving contents but doesn't specify behavioral traits such as read-only nature (implied by 'retrieve'), error handling (e.g., what happens if the file doesn't exist), rate limits, or authentication needs. The description adds some context about the GitHub repository ('johndoe-org/obsidian-vault'), but overall, it lacks detailed behavioral information for a tool with no annotation coverage.

  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, with two sentences that directly state the purpose and context. The first sentence clearly defines the action and resource, while the second adds value by highlighting the use case ('Perfect for accessing your knowledge base content'). There's no unnecessary fluff, making it efficient, though it could be slightly more structured to differentiate from siblings.

  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 (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is somewhat complete but has gaps. It covers the basic purpose and context but lacks details on behavioral traits, usage guidelines, and output expectations. Without annotations or an output schema, the description should do more to compensate, but it remains minimal, making it adequate but not fully comprehensive.

  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 parameter 'filePath' documented as 'Path to the file within the repository.' The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. Since schema coverage is high, 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 the contents of a specific note, document, or file from your Obsidian vault stored in GitHub.' It specifies the verb ('retrieve'), resource ('contents of a specific note, document, or file'), and context ('Obsidian vault stored in GitHub'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'searchFiles' or 'getCommitHistory' beyond mentioning 'Perfect for accessing your knowledge base content,' which is somewhat generic.

  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 use for accessing knowledge base content but doesn't specify when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'searchFiles' (which might list files) or 'getCommitHistory' (which tracks changes). No explicit when/when-not instructions or prerequisites are given, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the purpose alone.

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

• searchFilesB
  3.2/5.0
  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 'supports searching in filenames, paths, and content' and references 'GitHub's powerful search syntax,' which adds some context about search capabilities. However, it lacks details on critical behaviors such as pagination (implied by parameters but not described), rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or the format of search results. For a search tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operational traits.

  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 appropriately sized with three sentences that are front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, the second adds context about GitHub search, and the third specifies search scopes. There's no wasted text, and each sentence contributes meaningfully, though it could be slightly more structured for clarity.

  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 (search functionality with 4 parameters) and the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic purpose and search scopes but lacks details on behavioral aspects like result format, pagination behavior, or error conditions. Without an output schema, the description doesn't explain return values, which is a gap. It's adequate for a simple search tool but could be more comprehensive to fully guide an agent.

  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, providing clear documentation for all parameters (query, searchIn, page, perPage). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, mentioning 'search query' and 'searching in filenames, paths, and content' which aligns with the schema's details for 'query' and 'searchIn'. It doesn't provide additional syntax examples or usage nuances, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without compensating with extra insights.

  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: 'Search for notes, documents, and files within your Obsidian vault on GitHub.' It specifies the resource (Obsidian vault on GitHub) and the action (search), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like searchIssues, which might search different content types. The mention of 'find specific knowledge base content' adds context but doesn't fully distinguish from potential alternatives.

  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 by mentioning 'search for notes, documents, and files' and 'find specific knowledge base content,' suggesting it's for retrieving files in a knowledge base. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like getFileContents (for reading specific files) or searchIssues (for issue tracking), nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites. The guidance is present but not comprehensive.

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

• searchIssuesB
  3.2/5.0
  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. It mentions the repository (johndoe-org/obsidian-vault) and general use cases, but lacks details on behavioral traits like pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'discussions' entails. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient, though it's not misleading.

  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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by use cases. It's efficient with minimal waste, though the use-case list could be slightly trimmed for optimal conciseness, preventing a perfect score.

  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 moderate complexity (search with one parameter), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers purpose and context but lacks details on behavior, return values, or error handling, making it just viable for basic 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?

  Schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'query' documented as using 'GitHub Issue Search syntax.' The description adds no additional parameter information beyond this, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting without compensating for 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 tool searches for 'issues and discussions' in a specific repository, with the verb 'search' and resource 'issues and discussions' identified. It distinguishes from sibling tools like getCommitHistory and searchFiles by focusing on issues rather than commits or files. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential issue-specific siblings (none listed), so it's not a perfect 5.

  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 'tracking tasks, project management, and collaborative knowledge work,' suggesting context but not explicit when-to-use guidance. It doesn't mention when to use this vs. alternatives like searchFiles or provide exclusions. The guidance is helpful but not comprehensive enough for a higher score.

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

• getCommitHistoryB
  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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions retrieving commit history with detailed diffs, which hints at read-only behavior, but does not specify authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or pagination details. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operational 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 appropriately sized with two sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose. It avoids unnecessary fluff, but the second sentence could be slightly more concise by integrating the diff detail into the first sentence without losing clarity.

  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 complexity of a 5-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose and high-level behavior but lacks details on authentication, error handling, and return format, which are important for effective use. It compensates somewhat by specifying the repository and context.

  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 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by implying the tool retrieves commits over time with diffs, but it does not provide additional syntax, format details, or usage examples for parameters. Baseline 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 clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('retrieve', 'track') and resources ('commit history from GitHub'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools by focusing on commit history rather than file contents, file search, or issue search. It explicitly mentions the specific repository (johndoe-org/obsidian-vault) and the context of an Obsidian vault knowledge base.

  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 tracking evolution of notes/ideas over time with diffs, which provides some context, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like getFileContents or searchFiles, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. The guidance is present but not comprehensive.

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