Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• github_cancel_org_invitationA
  3.7/5.0
  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 only says 'Cancel a pending organization invitation' and does not disclose side effects, permission requirements, or behavior on already-accepted/invalid invitations.

  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 appropriately brief and well-structured, with a clear action statement and a simple parameter explanation. No wasted words.

  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 tool with a single parameter and an output schema, the description is mostly complete, but it lacks any warning about potential errors or conditions under which cancellation might fail, which is especially important for a mutation.

  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 description adds meaningful context to the invitation_id parameter by specifying it is numeric and obtained from github_list_org_invitations, going beyond the schema's basic integer type.

  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 action (cancel) and the resource (pending organization invitation), distinguishing it from sibling tools like remove_org_member or create_org_invitation.

  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 the tool is used for canceling invitations and references github_list_org_invitations for obtaining the ID, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or any exclusions.

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

• github_get_org_membershipA
  3.7/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits. It indicates a read operation ('Get') and names the returned attributes ('role and state'), but it does not mention error cases, authentication requirements, or rate limits. This is adequate for a simple getter but not rich.

  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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a compact Args block. It is not bloated, though the Args section partially repeats schema information.

  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 tool is simple with one required parameter and an output schema is available. The description explains the operation and parameter adequately. It lacks details about edge cases (e.g., non-member responses) and relations to invitation tools, but for the given complexity it is reasonably complete.

  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 only provides the parameter name 'username', but the description adds a meaningful explanation: 'The GitHub handle of the user to look up.' This fully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage, though it could include an example or further clarification.

  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 action ('Get') and the resource ('a user's membership (role and state) in the organization'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like github_list_org_members (listing members) or github_set_org_membership (changing membership).

  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 such as github_list_org_members for listing all members or github_set_org_membership for modifications. The description only states the operation, leaving tool selection to inference.

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

• github_list_org_invitationsA
  3.8/5.0
  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 for behavioral disclosure. However, it only mentions the parameters and their defaults, which are already in the schema. It does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, any authorization requirements, rate limits, or pagination behavior beyond the parameter descriptions.

  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 concise and front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by a clear, structured Args block. No redundant text is present, and every sentence contributes to understanding.

  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 simple list operation with an output schema, the description sufficiently covers purpose and parameters. It could add context about when to use this versus invitation creation/cancellation, but the core information is present. The output schema exists, so return values do not need to be explained.

  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 has no property descriptions (0% coverage), so the description compensates by explaining each parameter's purpose, including the max value for per_page and defaults. This adds meaning beyond the schema's basic type/default information.

  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 'List the organization's pending member invitations' with a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like creating or cancelling invitations. It leaves no ambiguity about the tool's function.

  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 purpose implies usage for viewing pending invitations, but there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over alternatives or any exclusions. The description does not mention scenarios where other invitation-related tools should be used instead.

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

• github_remove_org_memberA
  4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and adds meaningful behavioral disclosure: it notes that removing a member also removes them from all teams and revokes repository access. This goes beyond the bare action but does not cover permissions, reversibility, or error cases.

  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 concise and front-loaded with the main action, followed by a single sentence on important side effects and a clear Args section. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

  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 low complexity (one parameter, expected mutation behavior) and presence of an output schema, the description provides sufficient context by stating the action and key side effects. It does not explain return values, which is acceptable because an output schema exists, and the tool is simple enough that the description covers essential 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 schema has no descriptions for parameters, so the description compensates by explaining 'username: The GitHub handle of the user to remove.' This clarifies the meaning and format but is still minimal, adding little beyond what the parameter name and context imply.

  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 action with a specific verb and resource: 'Remove a user from the organization.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly targeting removal of an existing member rather than listing, getting, setting membership, or managing invitations.

  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 the tool is for removing existing members by detailing side effects, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like canceling an invitation or setting membership. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided, leaving the usage context only implied.

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

• github_list_org_membersA
  4.1/5.0
  Behavior3/5

  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 documents parameter semantics and defaults, which is behavioral context, but does not disclose authentication requirements, rate limits, or error conditions. It does not contradict annotations since none exist.

  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 concise docstring with a purpose line followed by a parameter list. Every sentence adds value, with no filler or repetition. It is well-structured and front-loaded.

  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 tool has 4 parameters, an output schema, and no annotations. The description covers all parameters and pagination, but it does not clarify how the organization is determined (e.g., from authentication context) or when to use this tool vs siblings. Given the output schema exists, return values are handled elsewhere, so the description is mostly complete with a minor gap.

  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?

  Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description fully compensates. It explains every parameter (role, filter, per_page, page) with allowed values and defaults, adding meaning far beyond the bare schema titles.

  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 states 'List members of the GitHub organization' with a clear verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'github_get_org_membership' (specific membership) and 'github_list_org_invitations' (invitations, not members).

  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 via the verb 'List' and resource, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions. Sibling tools handle membership modifications and invitations, so the use case is implied rather than explicit.

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

• github_create_org_invitationA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the exactly-one rule, role choices, and optional team_ids, which adds behavioral context. However, it lacks disclosure of required permissions, side effects (e.g., creating a pending invitation), or rate limits. The description is not contradictory but is not rich enough for a full 4.

  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 well-structured docstring with a one-line summary and a concise Args block. Every sentence adds value; no filler or repetition. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

  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?

  An output schema exists, so return values are covered externally. The description explains all parameters and the key constraint. It doesn't mention permissions or that the invitation is pending until accepted, but for a create-invitation tool with sibling context, it is reasonably complete. The existence of an output schema lowers the burden.

  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?

  Schema coverage is 0%, so the description fully compensates. It explains each parameter with meaning (invitee_id as GitHub numeric user ID, email for users without ID, role with allowed values, team_ids as optional list). This goes well beyond the schema's type/default info and clarifies the mutual exclusivity constraint.

  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 begins with 'Invite a user to the organization', a specific verb+resource that clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like github_list_org_members or github_cancel_org_invitation. It also clarifies the two possible identifiers (user ID or email) and the overall action.

  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?

  Provides explicit usage constraint 'Exactly one of invitee_id or email must be provided' and explains the role options and team_ids as optional. It implies when to use (when you need to invite someone) but doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives like set_org_membership, though the purpose itself is clear enough.

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

• github_set_org_membershipA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses key behavior (invitation for new users, role update for existing members) and indicates the 'pending' state, which is useful. However, it omits permission requirements, potential errors, or side effects, so it is only minimally adequate.

  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 compact and front-loaded with the core action. The behavioral note and Args block are clearly separated and add necessary information without redundancy or fluff.

  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 simple 2-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is largely complete: it explains behavior, parameters, and defaults. It does not mention edge cases (e.g., user not found) or permission requirements, but these are not essential given the tool's simplicity.

  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?

  Although the schema has no descriptions, the description's Args section fully documents both parameters: username ('GitHub handle') and role (allowed values 'member' or 'admin' plus default). This fully compensates for the 0% schema 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 opens with a specific verb+resource statement: 'Add a user to the organization or update their role.' This clearly differentiates from sibling tools like list/get/remove, and the added detail about invitation vs. role-update behavior further distinguishes it from create_org_invitation.

  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 the tool is used for adding or updating org membership, and the behavioral note about invitations vs. updates gives context. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or mention alternatives like create_org_invitation, so it falls short of a 5.

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