Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get_latest_package_versionsB
  3.4/5.0
  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 mentions error handling but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, requires authentication, or has rate limits. The description lacks detail on idempotency 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.

  Conciseness4/5

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

  The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently lists ecosystems without extraneous detail. It is moderately long but each sentence contributes value.

  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?

  Given the tool's complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers input handling and error reporting. However, it does not explain the output structure or preconditions, leaving some gaps.

  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% coverage with detailed descriptions per parameter, including formatting examples. The main description adds little beyond listing ecosystems, so it meets the baseline for high 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: getting latest versions of packages from various ecosystems. It lists supported ecosystems and indicates return of both successes and errors, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_github_action_versions_and_args.

  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 use for package version lookups but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not contrast with sibling tools or mention exclusion criteria, leaving the agent to infer from context.

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

• get_github_action_versions_and_argsA
  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. It discloses the behavioral trait of fetching latest Git tag and action.yml metadata, and optionally README. However, it does not mention authentication needs, rate limits, or what happens for invalid inputs. Some additional context would be beneficial.

  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 with two sentences, front-loading the primary purpose. Every sentence adds value and there is no unnecessary 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?

  Given the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, output schema exists), the description covers the main functionality adequately. It could briefly mention the output format or that it only works for github.com-hosted actions, but the existence of an output schema reduces the need for return value details.

  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 covers both parameters with descriptions. The tool description adds context by mentioning 'latest versions and metadata' and README, but does not significantly enhance the understanding of the parameters beyond the schema. Baseline for 100% coverage is 3.

  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 it gets the latest versions and metadata for GitHub Actions, specifying the exact data fetched (latest Git tag and action.yml) and optional README inclusion. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_latest_package_versions which target packages.

  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 context on what the tool does and its optional parameter, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. Given the distinct purpose from siblings, this is acceptable but not maximally helpful.

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

• get_latest_tool_versionsA
  4.6/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Description discloses it returns stable versions for a specific set of tools, and no side effects are implied. Without annotations, it adequately covers behavioral expectations.

  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?

  Front-loaded with purpose, well-organized with examples, but contains some lengthy details that could be condensed.

  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?

  Comprehensive for a simple tool with output schema; includes scope differentiation, usage guidance, and reference to sibling for full list.

  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?

  Schema covers 100% of parameters; description adds value by providing concrete example tool names, enhancing understanding of valid inputs.

  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 fetches latest stable versions of non-language-ecosystem tools, and distinguishes from sibling get_latest_package_versions.

  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?

  Explicitly states when to use (for tools not in language ecosystems) and when not to (use get_latest_package_versions for ecosystem packages), with practical examples.

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

• get_supported_toolsA
  4.6/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Without annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It accurately describes the read-only nature (retrieving a list) and includes return type and example. It could mention potential error conditions but is sufficient for a simple query 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?

  The description is concise, with a clear purpose stated first, followed by a brief explanation, return type, and example. Every sentence contributes to understanding without redundancy.

  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 parameterless tool with a simple return value, the description fully explains what it does, what it returns, and where the data comes from. The presence of an output schema (unseen but noted) further supports completeness.

  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?

  There are no parameters, so the schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining the return structure (list of tool short names) and providing an example, which helps an agent understand the output.

  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 that the tool retrieves the list of all tools supported by the get_latest_tool_versions MCP tool, specifically from the mise registry. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on supported tools rather than versions or arguments.

  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 context on how the tool relates to get_latest_tool_versions, suggesting its usage as a supporting query. However, it lacks explicit instructions on when not to use it or comparisons with sibling tools.

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