Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• trigger_make_scenarioC
  2.6/5.0
  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. While '触发' (trigger) implies an action that initiates something, the description doesn't reveal whether this is a read-only or destructive operation, what permissions are required, whether it's idempotent, rate limits, error handling, or what happens after triggering. For a tool that likely performs external API calls with no 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.

  Conciseness4/5

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

  The description is a single, efficient sentence in Chinese that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it could be slightly more specific to improve clarity without losing conciseness.

  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 likely interacts with an external service (Make.com) to trigger scenarios, has no annotations, no output schema, and involves parameters that could have complex implications (like the data object), the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover what happens after triggering, potential side effects, error cases, or how to interpret results, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to use it correctly.

  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 (action with enum values and data object). The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema—it doesn't explain what '要执行的动作类型' (action type to execute) means in practice or how the data object should be structured for different actions. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose3/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description states the tool '触发Make.com scenario执行指定任务' (triggers Make.com scenario to execute specified tasks), which provides a basic verb+resource combination. However, it's somewhat vague about what 'specified tasks' means, and while it distinguishes from sibling tools like get_scenario_status and test_webhook_connection by focusing on execution rather than status checking or testing, it doesn't clearly differentiate the scope of triggering versus other potential execution tools.

  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, appropriate contexts, or exclusions. Given the sibling tools (get_scenario_status, test_webhook_connection), there's no indication of when triggering execution is preferred over checking status or testing connections.

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

• get_scenario_statusC
  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 full burden. It states the tool 'gets' status, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or what the status output entails. This is a significant gap 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.

  Conciseness5/5

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

  The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, directly stating the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration.

  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 no annotations, no output schema, and a simple input schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the status return values might be, error conditions, or operational context, which is inadequate for a tool that likely returns varied status 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 the parameter 'execution_id' documented as 'scenario执行ID'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as format examples or sourcing details, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without compensating value.

  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 '获取' (get) and resource 'Make.com scenario的执行状态' (execution status of Make.com scenario), making the purpose specific. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its siblings (test_webhook_connection, trigger_make_scenario), which are clearly different operations, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

  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 or in what context. It lacks any mention of prerequisites, dependencies, or comparisons to sibling tools, leaving usage entirely implicit.

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

• test_webhook_connectionC
  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 only states the purpose without detailing what the tool actually does (e.g., sends a test request, verifies endpoints, returns status codes) or any behavioral traits like error handling, side effects, or output format. This leaves the agent guessing about the tool's operation.

  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 in Chinese that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff or redundancy. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

  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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., success/failure status, error messages) or how it behaves, which is crucial for a connection-testing tool. With sibling tools and no structured data to fill gaps, the description should provide more context about the tool's operation and results.

  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 doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate here. A baseline of 4 is applied since the schema fully covers the lack of parameters, and the description doesn't need to compensate.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose3/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description states the tool's purpose as '测试与Make.com webhook的连接' (Test connection with Make.com webhook), which is a clear verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like get_scenario_status or trigger_make_scenario, leaving ambiguity about when to use this specific connection test versus other webhook-related operations.

  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. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, such as whether this should be used before configuring webhooks or as a diagnostic tool. With sibling tools present, this lack of differentiation is a significant gap.

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