Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get_statusA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It accurately lists all return values, but it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or that checking via npm involves an external network request. For a simple informational tool, this is adequate but not rich in behavioral context.

  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 efficiently lists all return values with no fluff or repetition. Every word earns its place.

  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?

  This is a simple, parameterless tool with no output schema. The description fully enumerates the return values, making it complete for its intended purpose.

  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 per the rubric, the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter details, but none are needed since the input schema is empty.

  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 returns specific status information (server version, axe-core version, Playwright version, npm availability check). This distinguishes it from sibling audit and rule tools, which focus on 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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the name and content imply it is for checking versions/status, there is no stated context, prerequisites, or mention of alternative tools for other purposes.

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

• audit_htmlA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses a meaningful behavior (network requests blocked) but doesn't describe the return format or whether scripts in the HTML execute. It doesn't contradict annotations, and the audit verb implies non-mutating behavior, but more detail would help.

  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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource. Every phrase contributes: purpose, use case, and a key behavioral constraint. No filler.

  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 description explains the purpose, the offline context, and a key limitation. With the schema fully documenting all parameters, this is reasonably complete for an audit tool. The main omission is an explicit description of the return value or report structure, but the core usage is well covered.

  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 reinforces the 'html' parameter with 'raw HTML content' but adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

  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 verb and resource: 'Run an axe-core audit on raw HTML content.' It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool audit_url by emphasizing raw HTML input rather than a URL.

  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 gives a clear use case: 'Useful for testing components or generated markup without a running server.' The network-blocking limitation also helps decide when to use this tool versus a URL-based audit. It doesn't explicitly name an alternative, so it stops short of a 5.

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

• audit_urlA
  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 burden of disclosing behavior. It adds meaningful details: default audit level (A+AA cumulative), output grouping by impact, and inclusion of WCAG criteria, CSS selectors, and help URLs. This goes beyond a generic statement but does not cover potential errors or access limitations.

  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 tight sentences: the first states purpose, the second explains default behavior and return format. Zero filler, well-structured, and front-loaded with the core function.

  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?

  Given no output schema, the description explains return composition (violations grouped by impact with WCAG criteria, CSS selectors, help URLs). It does not discuss error cases or relationship to sibling tools, but with 9 richly described parameters and a clear summary, it is reasonably 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, but it does mention the default level (aa), which aligns with the schema. No additional value beyond 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 the tool 'Run an axe-core accessibility audit on a web page at a specified WCAG conformance level.' This specifies the verb (run), resource (web page), and distinguishes it from siblings like audit_html (which likely audits HTML input) and get_rules (lists rules).

  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 auditing web pages but does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives like audit_html or get_rules. No exclusions or conditions are given, so the usage context is clear but not fully articulated.

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

• get_rule_infoA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It does disclose the return value content (WCAG criteria, impact, tags, help URL), which is useful. However, it doesn't mention error handling (e.g., invalid ruleId), side effects, or whether any permissions are needed. As a read-only getter, the absence of side-effect information is less critical, but it's still a gap.

  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 that immediately states the action and resource, then lists key information returned. Every word contributes value with no filler or repetition.

  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?

  This is a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, so the description adequately explains what the tool does and what the return contains. It could mention behavior for a non-existent ruleId, but for a straightforward getter, the description is sufficiently 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?

  The input schema covers 100% of parameters with a helpful description for ruleId (including an example). The tool description only restates the concept of a specific axe-core rule without adding new details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since 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 uses a specific verb "Get" and clearly identifies the resource as "detailed information about a specific axe-core rule," listing the included content (WCAG criteria, impact, tags, help URL). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_rules and get_status.

  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 implies usage: when you need details for a specific rule, identified by ruleId. It clearly states the tool's scope (specific rule vs. listing all rules with get_rules), though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions. This is clear context but not full when-to-use/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_rulesA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It states 'Does not require a browser — instant response', which adds performance and execution context. The word 'List' implies a read-only, non-destructive operation, and 'optionally filtered' clarifies behavior when no filters are supplied. It does not describe return format, but for a simple list tool this is adequate.

  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 concise sentence that front-loads the core action ('List axe-core accessibility rules'), then adds filter options and a useful behavioral note. No wasted words; every clause 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 tool with 3 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the main aspects: what it lists, how to filter, and that it is instant and browserless. It does not mention return structure, but that is not essential for a list operation, and the sibling get_rule_info presumably handles detailed rule information.

  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 each parameter (level, search, criterion) having its own description. The tool description adds a summary of filtering ('by WCAG level, criterion, or search term') but no additional detail beyond what the schema provides. This is consistent with the baseline for high schema coverage.

  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 uses the specific verb 'List' with the resource 'axe-core accessibility rules' and mentions optional filtering by WCAG level, criterion, or search term. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like audit_url/audit_html (which perform audits) and get_rule_info (which focuses on a single rule).

  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 implies when to use this tool: to list rules without requiring a browser, providing instant responses. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the contrast with browser-requiring audit tools is implicit. The lack of explicit exclusions keeps it from a 5.

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