Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• search_notesB
  3/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent, leaving little behavioral burden on the description. The description adds the 'local' scope but omits details like whether the search is case-sensitive, returns snippets, or supports wildcards.

  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, concise sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. Every word earns its place; there is no wasted text.

  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?

  The description is too brief given the absence of an output schema. It does not indicate what the search returns (e.g., list of note IDs, full notes, snippets), leaving the agent uncertain about post-invocation handling.

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

  Parameters2/5

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

  With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate by explaining the 'query' parameter. It only implies that 'query' is a search term, but lacks details on format, examples, or constraints.

  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 searches local note titles and bodies, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_notes (which likely just lists) and read_note (which reads a single note). However, the term 'local' is ambiguous and could be clarified.

  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 like list_notes or read_note. The description does not explain the expected use case or when to prefer search over listing or reading.

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

• list_notesB
  3.4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, fully covering safety traits. The description adds that it returns IDs and titles, but does not disclose pagination or dataset scope. With annotations providing the safety profile, the description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the structured data.

  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?

  A single sentence containing only essential information. Perfectly concise with no wasted words, and the action is 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?

  Given no parameters, no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description is nearly complete. It lacks output format details (e.g., whether results are paginated) and comparison to search_notes, but these are minor gaps for a simple list tool.

  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?

  There are zero parameters and schema coverage is 100% (trivially). The description does not add meaning beyond the schema, but no extra parameter info is needed. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

  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 lists local note IDs and titles. It uses a specific verb 'List' and resource 'local note IDs and titles', distinguishing it from siblings like create_note, delete_note, read_note, search_notes, and workspace_summary.

  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 such as search_notes. It does not mention any context or exclusions, leaving the agent without decision support.

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

• read_noteB
  3.4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Annotations already cover readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint. Description adds 'local Markdown' but no new behavioral traits beyond annotations.

  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?

  Extremely concise with 7 words, front-loaded, no wasted text.

  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?

  No output schema and no description of return values. Adequate for a simple read tool but lacks detail for complex use.

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

  Parameters2/5

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

  Schema coverage is 0% and description only mentions 'by ID' without format or constraints. Minimal value added over schema.

  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?

  Description clearly states 'Read one local Markdown note by ID' with specific verb and resource, distinguishing from sibling tools like create, delete, list, search.

  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 on when to use this tool versus siblings like search_notes or list_notes. Agent receives no context for selection.

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

• create_noteA
  3.7/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Annotations already indicate non-read-only and non-destructive nature; the description adds the 'no overwrite' behavior but does not disclose error handling, idempotency, or 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?

  Single sentence, front-loaded with key information, no unnecessary words.

  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 three required parameters and no output schema, the description is too minimal; it does not explain 'local', markdown support, or behavior on duplicate id.

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

  Parameters2/5

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

  With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to explain any parameter meaning, format, or constraints beyond what is obvious from names.

  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 'create', the resource 'local Markdown note', and the constraint 'without overwriting an existing note', distinguishing it from sibling tools like delete_note, list_notes, etc.

  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 implies when to use (for creating new notes) and what to avoid (overwriting), but lacks explicit guidance on prerequisites or when to prefer alternatives.

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

• delete_noteA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations declare destructiveHint: true and readOnlyHint: false. The description adds value by emphasizing the need for explicit confirmation, which is a behavioral trait not covered by annotations. There is no contradiction.

  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 a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and key requirement. However, it lacks parameter details, which slightly reduces its effectiveness.

  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 two required parameters, no output schema, and annotations providing destructive context, the description is somewhat incomplete. It does not explain return values, the meaning of 'local,' or any side effects beyond deletion. It meets the minimum viable standard but has gaps.

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

  Parameters2/5

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

  Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the description does not explain the parameters. The description hints at the confirm parameter by stating 'after explicit confirmation,' but does not define id or specify their types or roles. This is insufficient.

  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 'Delete a local note after explicit confirmation' uses a specific verb (delete) and resource (local note), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_note, list_notes, read_note, search_notes, and workspace_summary.

  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 mentions 'after explicit confirmation,' providing a clear prerequisite for use. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or list alternatives, but the requirement for confirmation is a useful guideline.

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

• workspace_summaryA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint. Description adds that it returns a summary (count and titles), consistent with safety profile.

  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?

  Single sentence, zero waste, front-loaded purpose.

  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?

  Complete for a zero-parameter, read-only tool. Mentions output (number and titles) adequately. Could explicitly state scope (e.g., current workspace).

  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?

  No parameters; schema coverage 100%. Baseline 4 applies as description need not add param info.

  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?

  Clearly states it summarizes number and titles of local notes. Distinguishes from siblings like list_notes (full list), search_notes (filtered), read_note (single note).

  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?

  No explicit when-to-use or alternatives mentioned. Implied for overview but lacks guidance on when not to use (e.g., when full details needed).

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