Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• jetbrains_get_selectionC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are present, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It fails to indicate whether the operation is read-only, destructive, or requires authentication. Mentioning 'forwarded by the Claude JetBrains plugin' weakly implies a read operation but is insufficient.

  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 concise sentence that front-loads the main purpose. However, it is slightly under-specified for a tool with multiple parameters, but still efficient.

  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 (2 parameters, no output schema), the description provides a high-level overview of the return value ('file path and selected lines') but lacks details about the format, structure, or behavior (e.g., what happens if no selection exists). It is minimally adequate but not comprehensive.

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

  Parameters1/5

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

  Schema coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any parameters (maxChars, includeText) or their purpose. The schema provides defaults and constraints, but the description adds no value beyond that, leaving the agent uninformed about how to use the parameters effectively.

  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 returns the current file path and selected lines from the JetBrains plugin. This verb-resource combination is specific and distinct from sibling tools like jetbrains_list_instances or jetbrains_status.

  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, nor are there any exclusions or prerequisites mentioned. The description only states what it does, not the context for usage.

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

• jetbrains_list_instancesA
  3.6/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions listing and matching but does not discuss side effects (likely none, read-only), authorization requirements, or potential limitations. This is a significant gap.

  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 conveys the core functionality with no unnecessary words. It is concise, though could be slightly more structured.

  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 there are no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides minimal context. It lacks details about the output format, the definition of 'matches', and any behavior beyond listing. While acceptable for a simple list tool, it leaves gaps for an AI agent.

  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 input schema has zero properties, so there are no parameters to describe. Per guidelines, a baseline of 4 is appropriate since the description does not need to add parameter semantics.

  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 'List' and the resource 'JetBrains plugin instances', and adds the specific behavior of showing which instance matches the current project. This distinctly differentiates it from sibling tools like jetbrains_get_selection or jetbrains_status.

  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 that the tool is for listing instances and identifying the project-matched one, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or when to avoid using it. No usage context or exclusions are provided.

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

• jetbrains_refresh_connectionA
  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 must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'force a fresh scan' and 'reconnect' but does not explain side effects (e.g., whether current state is disrupted, auth requirements) or what happens to existing connections.

  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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Every part delivers essential information.

  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 no output schema and no annotations, the description is minimal but covers the core action. However, it lacks details on side effects, prerequisites, or postconditions, leaving some gaps for a complete understanding.

  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 exist, so baseline is 4. The description adds meaning by explaining the tool's actions (scan lockfiles, reconnect) beyond the empty 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 it forces a fresh scan of lockfiles and reconnects to the matching JetBrains plugin instance. This specific verb-resource pair distinguishes it from siblings like get_selection or list_instances.

  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 when-not-to-use guidance is given. The description implies it's for refreshing a stale connection or lockfiles, but alternatives are not mentioned.

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

• jetbrains_list_upstream_toolsA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  The description indicates a read operation by 'list', but with no annotations, it does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as permissions, side effects, or limitations. Basic transparency is adequate but minimal.

  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 sentence with no superfluous words, clearly stating the tool's function and context.

  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?

  The description covers purpose and use-case but does not specify output format (e.g., list of tool names or details). For a simple list tool without output schema, this is adequate but could be more informative.

  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; the empty schema is fully described. The description does not need to add parameter information beyond what the schema already provides.

  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 explicitly states 'List the upstream MCP tools' with a clear verb and resource, and distinguishes from siblings like jetbrains_get_selection by specifying 'upstream MCP tools'.

  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 mentions 'for debugging and extension work' which gives context, but lacks explicit when-to-use or alternatives guidance. No comparison with sibling tools is provided.

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

• jetbrains_statusA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations provided, and the description only says 'Show connection status'. Does not disclose whether it performs a live check or returns cached state, or any side effects. Minimal disclosure.

  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, no fluff, perfectly sized for the tool's simplicity.

  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?

  Given zero complexity, no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description fully covers what the tool does.

  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?

  Zero parameters, so the description naturally adds no param info. According to calibration rules, 0 params = baseline 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?

  Clearly states verb 'Show' and resource 'connection status for the Claude JetBrains plugin adapter'. Distinguishes from sibling tools like jetbrains_refresh_connection which implies a different action.

  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 or when-not to use, but the simplicity of a zero-parameter status check makes usage obvious. No alternatives mentioned, but siblings indicate other connection-related tools.

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