Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• createSiteFromGitHubC
  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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool creates a site but doesn't mention critical behaviors like whether this requires specific permissions, if it's idempotent, what happens on failure, or if there are rate limits. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's operational characteristics.

  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 that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It's perfectly front-loaded and wastes no space, making it highly efficient for an agent to parse.

  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 creation tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the tool returns upon success or failure, doesn't mention authentication requirements, and provides no context about the Netlify platform or GitHub integration. The agent would need to guess about many operational aspects.

  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%, so all parameters are documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any additional parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema, such as explaining relationships between parameters or providing examples. 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 ('Create') and resource ('new Netlify site from a GitHub repository'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'deleteSite' or 'getSite' beyond the obvious action difference, which is why it doesn't reach a perfect 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 like 'listSites' or 'getSite', nor does it mention prerequisites such as GitHub authentication or Netlify account setup. It simply states what the tool does without contextual usage information.

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

• deleteSiteC
  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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Delete a site' implies a destructive, irreversible mutation, but it doesn't specify permissions required, whether deletion is permanent, what happens to associated resources, or error conditions. This is a significant gap for a destructive operation with zero 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 'Delete a site' is extremely concise—a single three-word phrase that front-loads the core action. There is zero wasted language, making it efficient and immediately clear, though this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness in other dimensions.

  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 this is a destructive mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what 'delete' entails behaviorally, what the response might contain, or error handling. For a tool that permanently removes resources, more context is needed to guide 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?

  The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'siteId' parameter fully documented as 'ID or name of the site to delete'. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides, 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 'Delete a site' clearly states the verb (delete) and resource (site), making the tool's function immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'getSite' or 'listSites', but the action 'delete' inherently distinguishes it from those read-only 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?

  The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing site), consequences of deletion, or when to choose other tools like 'createSiteFromGitHub' for creation instead. This leaves the agent without context for appropriate tool selection.

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

• getSiteC
  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 states 'Get details' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify aspects like whether it requires authentication, rate limits, error handling (e.g., for invalid site IDs), or what 'details' includes (e.g., fields returned). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant 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, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose ('Get details of a specific site'), making it immediately understandable. Every word earns its place, and there's no 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 the tool's simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'details' are returned, which is crucial since there's no output schema. For a read operation with no annotations, it should at least hint at the response structure or key fields to make it fully usable by an agent.

  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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'siteId' parameter clearly documented as 'ID or name of the site to retrieve'. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this, as it doesn't elaborate on parameter usage or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate since 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 ('Get details') and resource ('specific site'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'listSites' (which retrieves multiple sites vs. a single site), but the specificity of 'specific site' implies a single-item retrieval. This is clear but lacks explicit sibling 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to use 'getSite' vs. 'listSites' (e.g., for a single known site vs. browsing all sites) or prerequisites like needing a site ID. There's no explicit or implied context for usage beyond the basic purpose.

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

• listSitesB
  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 ('List') but doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, what the output format looks like, or any rate limits. For a listing tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

  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's appropriately sized for a simple listing operation and front-loads the essential information.

  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?

  For a listing tool with three well-documented parameters but no annotations or output schema, the description is minimally complete. It identifies the resource but doesn't address behavioral aspects like pagination behavior, authentication needs, or output format, which could help the agent understand what to expect.

  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 input schema has 100% description coverage, thoroughly documenting all three parameters with their purposes, enums, defaults, and constraints. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema already provides, which is adequate but not additive.

  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 ('Netlify sites'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its siblings like 'getSite', which might retrieve a specific site rather than listing multiple sites.

  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 'getSite' or 'createSiteFromGitHub'. There's no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or comparisons to sibling tools, leaving the agent without contextual usage cues.

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