Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• list_servicesA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. 'List' implies a read-only operation, and 'for the authenticated developer' gives context about authorization scope, but no details about side effects, permissions, rate limits, or return structure are disclosed. For a simple listing tool this is acceptable, but it is 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?

  The description is a single sentence (12 words) that immediately states the action and scope. It is concise, front-loaded, and contains no filler or redundancy.

  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 no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides the essential purpose and scope. It omits explicit mention of return value details, but for a simple 'list all' operation the output is self-evident. Slightly more detail (e.g., pagination or result format) could make it more complete, but it is sufficient for the tool's simplicity.

  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, and the schema coverage is 100% (vacuously). Per the rubric, a 0-parameter tool gets a baseline of 4. The description does not need to explain parameters, and there is nothing missing.

  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 ('List') and resource ('services configured in Clavis'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like call_service, get_credentials, and check_credential_status. It also clarifies scope ('for the authenticated developer'), making the purpose explicit.

  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 (when you need to enumerate services) but provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternative tools, nor does it mention any exclusions or caveats. Sibling names suggest different operations, but the description itself does not address them.

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

• call_serviceA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the security model: the credential is fetched from Clavis vault and injected server-side, so the raw API key never enters the conversation. It also states that this prevents exfiltration, adding meaningful context beyond the schema.

  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 three sentences long, each serving a distinct purpose: stating the action, explaining the credential handling, and providing usage guidance. It is front-loaded with 'RECOMMENDED' and wastes no 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 description covers the tool's purpose, security behavior, and preferred usage, while the schema exhaustively documents parameters. Although there is no output schema and the description doesn't explicitly state the return format, the tool is an API caller so the response is presumably the upstream response; this is a minor gap given the overall context.

  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 fully documents each parameter. The description reinforces the purpose of service_name (credential injection) but doesn't add new parameter-level details beyond what the schema already provides, earning the baseline score.

  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's function: 'Make an API call with server-side credential injection.' It names the specific resource (Clavis vault credentials) and distinguishes itself from sibling tool get_credentials, so there is no ambiguity about what this tool does.

  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?

  Explicit guidance is provided: 'Prefer this over get_credentials' with a rationale that it eliminates prompt-injection exfiltration. The 'RECOMMENDED' label further signals preferred usage over the alternative.

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

• check_credential_statusA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the transparency burden. It discloses key behaviors: no external API call, queries only the Clavis vault (database + Redis), and specifies the returned fields (validity, expiry, rate-limit headroom, last-used timestamp). This gives a clear picture of the tool's operation and side effects.

  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 three concise sentences, each earning its place: purpose, mechanism, and return values. It front-loads the main action and avoids any fluff or repetition.

  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 tool's simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema), the description is complete. It explains what the tool does, how it works, and what it returns, covering all essential aspects without requiring an output schema.

  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% and the single parameter service_name is well-described in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so it stays at the baseline for high 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 a specific verb ('Check') and a clear resource ('credentials for a service'), and explicitly states the scope ('validity and rate-limit status'). It distinguishes from siblings by noting 'without making any external API call', separating it from call_service and get_credentials.

  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 clearly implies this is for checking credential status before using a service, and the phrase 'without making any external API call' indicates when to use this over call_service. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or provide when-not-to-use exclusions, so it falls short of full explicit guidance.

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

• get_credentialsA
  4.7/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly discloses that raw credentials are exposed to the model, flags itself as LEGACY, and notes automatic token refresh/rotation. This is comprehensive for a simple read 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?

  Four sentences, each earning its place: purpose, security warning, usage restriction, and automatic refresh behavior. Front-loaded with the core function, no redundant content.

  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?

  For a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, this is complete. It covers purpose, security context, alternatives, and lifecycle behavior. Nothing critical is missing.

  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% ('The name of the service to retrieve credentials for...'), so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional parameter information beyond the schema, which is acceptable but not additive.

  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?

  States exactly what it does: 'returns raw credential data into this conversation.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes itself from the sibling tool call_service by noting it's the legacy/exposing variant.

  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 and when-not-to-use guidance: 'Prefer call_service for security' and 'Use this only when you must hold the token itself (e.g. handing it to a library that cannot be proxied).' This clearly differentiates from siblings.

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