Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• connect_databaseC
  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. It states the tool connects to a database but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this establishes a persistent session, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what happens on failure (e.g., error handling). For a connection tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in safety and operational 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?

  The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized, with every part contributing to clarity.

  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 complexity of a database connection tool (which involves authentication, session management, and potential errors), the description is incomplete. No annotations exist to cover safety or behavioral aspects, and there's no output schema to explain return values (e.g., success status, connection ID). The description alone fails to provide enough context for safe and effective 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%, so the schema already documents both parameters (connectionString and dialect) with descriptions and enum values. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying the connectionString is used for connection, which is redundant with the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

  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 ('Connect to a database') and resource ('database'), specifying it uses a connection string. It distinguishes from siblings like disconnect_database or list_connections by focusing on establishing a connection. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from run_query, which might also involve connection handling.

  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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_connections (which might show existing connections) or run_query (which might handle queries without explicit connection). It lacks context on prerequisites, such as whether this is needed before other operations, or exclusions for when not to use it.

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

• disconnect_databaseC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries full burden but provides minimal behavioral context. It states the action but doesn't disclose effects (e.g., whether disconnection is reversible, if it affects active queries, permissions required, or error handling). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical gaps in understanding its behavior.

  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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It front-loads the core purpose ('Disconnect from a database') and adds necessary specificity ('using connection ID'), making it appropriately sized for this simple tool.

  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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on what happens after disconnection (e.g., success/failure response, side effects), error conditions, or how it integrates with sibling tools. This leaves the agent with insufficient context for reliable 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 'connectionID' fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond restating that it uses a connection ID, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.

  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 ('Disconnect from') and resource ('a database'), specifying it uses a connection ID. It distinguishes from 'disconnect_all' by focusing on a single connection, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other siblings like 'list_connections' or 'run_query' beyond the obvious action difference.

  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 versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., must be connected first), when to prefer 'disconnect_all', or how it relates to 'connect_database' or other siblings. The agent must infer usage from tool names alone.

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

• run_queryC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Run SQL query' implies execution capability, it doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits like whether this executes read-only queries, supports transactions, has side effects, requires specific permissions, or handles errors. The description is minimal and lacks necessary context for safe use.

  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 extremely concise - a single sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and appropriately sized for what it communicates, though it could benefit from additional context.

  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 tool that executes SQL queries with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens when queries run (transactions, side effects), what the return format might be, error handling, or security implications. Given the complexity and potential impact of SQL execution, more completeness is needed.

  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 schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters clearly documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema (connectionID and query array). This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.

  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 ('Run SQL query') and target resource ('on the connected database'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from potential sibling tools that might also execute queries, though none are listed among the provided siblings.

  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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites like needing an established connection first (though 'connect_database' is a sibling), nor does it specify what types of queries are appropriate or any limitations.

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

• disconnect_allB
  3.1/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the action but doesn't mention important behavioral aspects like whether this requires admin permissions, if it's reversible, what happens to in-progress transactions, or potential system impacts. For a potentially destructive operation with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

  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, efficient sentence that communicates the core purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a zero-parameter tool and gets straight to the point.

  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 potentially destructive database operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'disconnect' means operationally, what gets returned (if anything), error conditions, or system impacts. Given the complexity and lack of structured data, more context is needed.

  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 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the parameter situation. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist, earning a baseline 4 for not adding unnecessary information.

  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 ('Disconnect all') and target ('active database connections'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'disconnect_database' tool, which might handle individual connections.

  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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'disconnect_database' or 'list_connections'. The description only states what it does, not when it's appropriate or what prerequisites might exist.

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

• list_connectionsB
  3.2/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states it lists 'active' connections, which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify what 'active' means, whether it shows metadata (e.g., IDs, status), or if there are limitations like pagination or rate limits. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that might involve system state.

  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, clear sentence with zero waste—it directly states the tool's action without fluff. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple tool, earning full marks for efficiency.

  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 simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it fails to explain what the list includes (e.g., connection details, format) or behavioral aspects, leaving room for improvement in context for an agent.

  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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't mention parameters, avoiding redundancy. A baseline of 4 is applied since it doesn't add unnecessary information 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 the verb ('List') and resource ('all active database connections'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from potential sibling tools like 'connect_database' or 'disconnect_all' beyond the basic action.

  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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'run_query' or 'disconnect_database'. It lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., whether connections must be established first) or typical use cases, leaving the agent with minimal usage direction.

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