Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• opencode.configureC
  2.7/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description adds value by disclosing that the tool does not store provider keys or edit project paths. However, it does not cover other behavioral aspects such as side effects, authentication needs, or response format. The claim of listing models is unqualified.

  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 very concise with two sentences, avoiding fluff. However, it could be structured better with bullet points or a clearer separation of functionality and constraints.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness2/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a configuration tool with 3 undocumented parameters and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain how results are returned, how to properly use parameters, or what constitutes valid input. The agent lacks sufficient context to use the tool effectively.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters1/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 0%, and the tool description provides no explanation of the parameters (reuseHours, cleanupDays, defaultModel). The agent must guess their purpose from names alone, which is insufficient for correct 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?

  Description clearly states the tool lists OpenCode models and stores bridge defaults, and explicitly mentions what it does not do (store keys, edit paths). However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like opencode.run or opencode.sessions, though the configuration purpose is inferred.

  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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks context like prerequisites, typical use cases, or explicit recommendations. It only states what the tool does and does not do.

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

• opencode.sessionsB
  3/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Annotations already indicate destructiveness (destructiveHint=true), so the bar is lower. The description adds that active and child sessions are protected, which is useful safety context. However, it does not disclose other behavioral traits like authorization requirements, rate limits, or what happens to related data. Score 3 acknowledges the added value without being comprehensive.

  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: the first lists the actions concisely, the second adds a key constraint. Every word earns its place, and the most important information (what the tool does) is front-loaded. There is no redundancy or verbosity.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness2/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the tool has 4 parameters with 0% schema coverage, multiple actions, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the role of permission-related parameters, how actions are selected, or the expected return values. An agent would struggle to use all functionality correctly without additional context.

  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 coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the action types ('list', 'cancel', etc.) but does not explain the meaning of 'sessionId', 'permissionId', or 'permissionResponse' parameters beyond what the enum values suggest. The mapping from actions to required parameters is missing, making it hard for an agent to invoke correctly.

  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 lists the actions (list, cancel, delete, clean) and the resource (OpenCode sessions), making the tool's purpose apparent. However, it does not explain the difference between similar actions like 'cancel' and 'delete', nor does it distinguish this tool from its siblings (opencode.configure, opencode.run, opencode.run_task). A higher score would require explicit differentiation.

  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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. The only usage hint is that active/child sessions are protected from deletion, but this is a constraint, not a usage guideline. A score of 2 reflects the lack of actionable context for choosing this tool.

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

• opencode.runB
  3.1/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds that it may edit the project, but does not disclose other behavioral traits like authentication, rate limits, or what happens to existing sessions.

  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 that are direct and front-loaded. Every word is essential, no redundancy.

  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?

  Adequate given the output schema exists and parameters are documented. However, could provide more context about asynchronous behavior or integration with other tools.

  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. The description adds minimal context about the 'task' parameter (reads project itself), but no significant value beyond the schema.

  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 it creates/resumes a session and executes a task, possibly editing the project. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool opencode.run_task, which likely has similar functionality.

  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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like opencode.run_task or opencode.sessions. The description does not specify prerequisites or exclusions.

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

• opencode.run_taskA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already indicate destructive behavior; description adds value by disclosing durability and recovery after restart, which are not in annotations.

  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 with front-loaded purpose and efficient addition of recovery detail, no wasted words.

  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 rich schema descriptions and annotations, the description covers core behavior adequately; could slightly improve by noting what happens when task support is not negotiated.

  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 descriptions cover all 5 parameters clearly; the tool description adds no additional parameter context beyond what the schema 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 clearly states the tool starts a durable OpenCode task and recovers after restart, distinguishing it from sibling tools like opencode.run (non-durable) and opencode.configure (configuration).

  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 durable task execution with recovery is needed, and mentions the condition of MCP host negotiating task support, but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative sibling comparisons.

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