Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get_archive_schemaA
  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 the full burden. It mentions 'Get', which implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state that it has no side effects, requires no special permissions, or how it behaves in terms of output format. The description is minimal and lacks explicit safety guarantees.

  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 two short, effective sentences. The first states the action, the second explains the purpose. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or repetition. It is front-loaded and easily scannable.

  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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers what it returns (table names and columns) and why it is useful (for SQL queries). It provides enough context for an agent to decide when to invoke it. It does not delve into edge cases or technical details, but given the tool's simplicity, this is adequate.

  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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema is an empty object. The description does not need to explain parameters, and the baseline for 0 params is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific details, which is appropriate.

  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 function: 'Get the archive database table names and their columns.' It uses a specific verb 'Get' and names the resource, making it distinct from siblings like query_archive_sql, which executes queries, and get_sync_status, which checks sync status.

  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?

  It gives clear context for use: 'Useful for understanding what data is available for SQL queries.' This implies it should be used before querying, and it differentiates itself from query_archive_sql. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use the tool, so it stops 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.

• list_examplesA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the default filtering behavior and the 'all' override, which is useful. However, it does not mention output format, ordering, or errors, though for a simple listing tool this is adequate but not extensive.

  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 two short sentences with the primary purpose front-loaded. It provides essential parameter guidance without filler or redundancy.

  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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description explains what is listed and the filtering option. It could mention fields in the returned list, but the core behavior is sufficiently covered.

  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?

  Schema description coverage is 100%, and the description mostly restates the same info about 'current' and 'all'. It adds minor context about 'current server mode' and 'regardless of mode', but does not significantly enhance the schema's meaning.

  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 lists curated example workflows, using a specific verb and resource. It also explains that each workflow is a sequence of tool calls, adding clarity. While siblings include get_example, the list tool's purpose is distinct and unambiguous.

  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 for when to use the default filtering mode and when to pass 'all', explaining the override. It does not explicitly name alternatives like get_example, but the parameter guidance offers a solid sense of usage.

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

• get_exampleA
  4.4/5.0
  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 of behavioral disclosure. It describes the return as 'full step list' and implies a read-only operation via the verb 'Get', but it does not explicitly state that it is non-mutating, nor does it mention behavior for invalid or missing names. This is adequate 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.

  Conciseness5/5

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

  The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and the second sentence provides a concise, directive usage hint. There is no waste; every word contributes.

  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 one-parameter getter, the description covers the purpose, the prerequisite discovery step, and the return type ('full step list'). The lack of an output schema makes the return description a bit vague, but given the tool's simplicity and sibling context, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke it correctly.

  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 already covers the parameter with 100% description coverage, but the description adds practical semantic value by telling the agent to use values from list_examples, indicating the source of valid names (e.g., 'send_payment'). This goes beyond the schema's static description.

  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 'Get the full step list for a single named example workflow', which is a specific verb ('Get'), a clear resource ('full step list for a single named example workflow'), and it distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on step-list retrieval for a named example, while list_examples discovers names.

  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?

  The description explicitly says 'Use list_examples first to discover names', providing a direct instruction on when to use this tool and naming the prerequisite sibling tool. This clearly guides the agent on the correct usage sequence.

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

• get_sync_statusA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It reveals a non-obvious output flattening (fields at top level, not nested under 'daemonStatus') and mode-dependent return values. This is strong transparency, though it doesn't cover potential error cases or rate limits.

  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 two sentences and front-loaded with the core purpose. The second sentence provides critical positional and mode-related nuances without fluff. Every clause adds value, and the structure is easy to scan.

  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 output schema, the description compensates by listing example top-level fields and explaining mode-dependent behavior. It lacks full enumeration of all possible fields or error scenarios, but for a simple status tool it is sufficiently 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?

  There are zero parameters, so the schema imposes no burden. The description adds nothing about parameters because none exist; per the rubric, 0 parameters earns a baseline of 4. It appropriately focuses on output behavior instead.

  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 verb and resource: 'Get the sync status and daemon info.' It also differentiates from siblings (archive query, schema, examples) by specifying the focus on daemon status. The mode-specific behavior (snapshot vs tutorial/live) adds precise scope.

  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?

  It does not explicitly name alternatives, but it provides contextual guidance by describing what happens in snapshot mode versus tutorial/live modes, helping the agent infer when to use it based on the desired mode. Sibling tools are clearly unrelated to sync status, so the intended use is implied.

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

• query_archive_sqlA
  4.8/5.0
  Behavior5/5

  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, and it excels. It explicitly states the tool is read-only, limits SQL statement types, discloses a timeout, and notes unavailability in live mode. This goes well beyond basic mutability/safety hints and provides actionable operational constraints.

  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 purpose stated in the first sentence. Every subsequent sentence adds useful information (constraints, timeout, availability, common tables, guidance) 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?

  The description is highly complete for a query tool, covering purpose, constraints, availability, timeout, and schema guidance. It lacks an explicit statement of the return format (e.g., result rows), which is left unspecified, but given no output schema exists and the tool name implies query results, this is a minor gap.

  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 already provides full coverage for both parameters (sql and params) with descriptions and an example. The description adds value by reinforcing the read-only constraint on the sql parameter and providing context about common tables, which helps formulate valid queries. Since coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3, and the added constraints and examples justify a 4.

  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 function: 'Execute a read-only SQL query against the archive database.' It specifies the resource (archive database) and the action (execute SQL), and distinguishes it from siblings like get_archive_schema (schema retrieval) and get_sync_status (sync status).

  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?

  The description provides explicit usage guidance, including the allowable SQL statement types (SELECT/WITH/EXPLAIN), the 10-second timeout, unavailability in live mode, and an explicit instruction: 'Call get_archive_schema first if you don't know the table layout.' This clearly directs the agent on when and how to use the tool relative to alternatives.

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