Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• igniral_update_dynamic_endpointA
  3.5/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states it 'updates' and 'modifies the schema or configuration' without detailing whether it performs a partial patch or full replacement, any side effects, authorization needs, or response format. This lack of behavioral context is a significant gap for an update operation.

  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 concise sentences, front-loading the primary action and a key prerequisite. There is no redundancy or filler, and it efficiently conveys the core purpose. However, it could be slightly more structured with separate usage notes.

  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 10 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is too sparse. It fails to explain important aspects like idempotency, partial update behavior, response structure, or error conditions. The description leaves the agent with insufficient behavioral and operational context for a complex update tool.

  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 adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema, merely echoing that it modifies schema or configuration. It does not explain how parameters relate to each other or provide usage examples, leaving the schema to carry the full burden.

  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 verb 'Updates' and the resource 'dynamic API endpoint', specifying it operates within an existing application. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'create_dynamic_endpoint' by focusing on modification of an already existing endpoint, and explicitly mentions the prerequisite of an endpointId from list_applications.

  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 indicates when to use the tool (to modify an existing endpoint) and mentions a prerequisite (endpointId from list_applications). However, it does not explicitly exclude alternative tools for different scenarios, such as creating a new endpoint, which is left implicit given the sibling tool names.

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

• igniral_create_dynamic_endpointA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the creation action, required parameters, and explains security policies with their implications. It does not describe failure modes, rate limits, or detailed auth flows, but the iterative use and policy explanations add substantial 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.

  Conciseness4/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is well-structured: purpose first, then prerequisites, usage pattern, and options. It is concise without being overly terse, and each sentence adds meaningful context. A slight improvement could be more front-loaded with security policy overview.

  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 9 parameters (4 required), no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides adequate context: how to use iteratively, what to provide, and policy details. It omits return values and error conditions, but the core workflow is clearly explained.

  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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining how parameters interact, e.g., 'securityPolicy' with 'securityConfig', and provides high-level context for 'schemaDefinition' (JSON Schema format). This goes beyond the schema's individual parameter descriptions.

  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 verb-resource ('Creates a dynamic API endpoint') and explicitly ties it to an existing application, distinguishing it from siblings like 'igniral_update_dynamic_endpoint' and 'igniral_create_application'.

  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 specifies the prerequisite ('Requires an applicationId from a previous igniral_create_application call') and recommends iterative use ('Use this iteratively to add all needed endpoints'). It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance but provides sufficient operational context.

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

• igniral_create_applicationA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses creation of empty shell, return of applicationId, and inability to create endpoints. Lacks details on safety (creation is typically non-destructive) and authentication requirements.

  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?

  Concise multiple sentences, each adding value. Front-loaded with key purpose, 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?

  Despite lack of output schema, description explains return of applicationId. Context of workflow is provided. 6 parameters with full schema descriptions, but no details on output format beyond applicationId.

  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 parameters are well-documented in schema. Description mentions name, description, and settings but adds no extra semantic 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?

  Description clearly states it creates an empty application shell without endpoints. It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly mentioning the workflow: use after this tool for endpoints, and do not use after schema generation.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines5/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  Provides explicit when-to-use: manual step-by-step building. Gives clear exclusions: do not use after igniral_generate_schema_from_prompt. Directs to sibling tool for adding endpoints.

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

• igniral_list_applicationsA
  4.4/5.0
  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 that no parameters are needed and that the user is identified via a service token, indicating authentication context. It does not mention any destructive or side effects, which is appropriate for a listing tool.

  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 consists of three short, front-loaded sentences. The first sentence states the purpose, the second explains usage, and the third clarifies parameters. Every sentence is necessary and concise, with 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?

  The tool has no output schema, but the description covers purpose, usage, and authentication. For a simple listing tool, it is adequately complete. It does not specify return format or pagination, but given the simplicity, the information provided is sufficient for an agent to decide and invoke 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?

  There are 0 parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (empty schema). The description adds value by confirming 'Takes no parameters — the user is identified by the configured service token,' which clarifies the lack of input. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4.

  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 'Lists all applications owned by the current user.' This is a specific verb+resource, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like igniral_create_application (create) and igniral_update_dynamic_endpoint (update).

  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 explicit usage context: 'Use this to check what applications already exist before creating new ones, or to get the applicationId of an existing application.' It implies when to use (before creation) and what to extract, though it does not explicitly list alternatives.

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

• igniral_generate_schema_from_promptA
  4.9/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  Despite no annotations, the description discloses behavioral traits: it creates everything automatically, takes 30-90 seconds, and returns applicationId and summary. This informs the agent of side effects and performance.

  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 concise with three short paragraphs. Each sentence serves a purpose: stating the core function, providing usage context, and detailing outcomes. No unnecessary words.

  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?

  Given the single parameter and no output schema, the description covers all necessary context: what the tool does, when to use it, what not to do, timing, and return value. It is fully complete.

  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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by advising to be as detailed as possible and mentioning the 10-character minimum, enhancing the schema's description.

  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 'Generates a complete application from a natural language description' with a clear verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by noting that igniral_create_application and igniral_create_dynamic_endpoint are unnecessary after this tool.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines5/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  Explicitly says 'Use this when the user gives a general or ambiguous instruction' and advises against calling other tools afterward, providing clear when-to-use and 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.