Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• configure_preferencesA
  3.8/5.0
  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. It discloses that the tool can both set preferences and show current configuration, which is useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't mention permission requirements, persistence mechanisms, or whether changes are immediate/reversible, leaving gaps for a configuration tool.

  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 with a clear purpose statement followed by a parameter list and behavioral note. It's appropriately sized at 6 lines, though the parameter explanations could be slightly more concise (e.g., combining width/height descriptions).

  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 5 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description does an excellent job explaining parameter semantics. The presence of an output schema means return values don't need explanation. The main gap is lack of sibling tool differentiation and some behavioral context like persistence details.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters5/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The description adds significant value beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It provides specific semantics for all 5 parameters: enumerating valid values for 'output_format' and 'theme', explaining units for 'chart_width' and 'chart_height', and clarifying the boolean 'reset_to_defaults' parameter's effect.

  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 tool's purpose as 'Interactive configuration tool for setting user preferences' with specific parameters listed. It distinguishes from the sibling 'render_chart' by focusing on configuration rather than rendering, though the distinction could be more 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 provides implied usage guidance by stating 'If no parameters provided, shows current configuration with sample,' which suggests when to use it for read vs. write operations. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'render_chart' or other configuration methods.

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

• render_chartA
  4.1/5.0
  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 of behavioral disclosure. It describes key behaviors like special modes ('help' and 'suggest'), return types (MCP-compatible content), and optional parameters, but lacks details on error handling, performance limits, or authentication needs. This provides moderate transparency but leaves gaps for a tool with 6 parameters.

  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 with sections for general purpose, special modes, and parameters, making it easy to scan. It is appropriately sized with no redundant sentences, though it could be slightly more front-loaded by emphasizing the primary use case before special modes.

  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 the tool's complexity (6 parameters, nested objects) and the presence of an output schema (which reduces the need to explain return values), the description is mostly complete. It covers key usage scenarios and parameter semantics but lacks details on behavioral aspects like error conditions or rate limits, which are important for a rendering tool.

  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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds significant meaning by explaining each parameter's purpose, such as 'chart_type' options ('line', 'bar', 'pie', etc.), 'data' as 'list of objects (rows)', and 'field_map' keys. However, it does not fully detail all aspects like the structure of 'config_overrides' or 'options', preventing a perfect 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 purpose with specific verbs ('Render a chart from tabular data') and distinguishes it from the only sibling tool 'configure_preferences' by focusing on chart generation rather than configuration. It also mentions the return type ('MCP-compatible content'), making the purpose explicit and differentiated.

  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 clear usage contexts by detailing special modes ('help' and 'suggest') and when data is required (e.g., 'requires data' for 'suggest' mode). However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the sibling 'configure_preferences' or other alternatives, which limits the score to 4.

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