Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• rest_extractA
  3.6/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations exist, so the description bears full responsibility. It states the tool executes HTTP requests and extracts fields but fails to disclose that methods like POST/PUT/DELETE can create or modify data. No mention of authentication, rate limits, error behavior, 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.

  Conciseness3/5

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

  The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and an example, but the 'AUTONOMOUS CONTEXT RESOLUTION' section is verbose (six bullet points). While informative, it could be more concise or separated as a usage note. The overall length is acceptable but not minimal.

  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?

  With no output schema, the description should detail return format beyond 'Returns only the extracted data.' It omits error handling, authentication (likely relying on rest_set_token), status codes, and the structure of extracted results. The long resolution instructions do not compensate for missing behavioral and output details.

  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 coverage is 100% so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining dot-notation syntax with an example, noting [] for array iteration, and specifying that endpoint is path-only. It also clarifies usage via the autonomous resolution block, though some parameter details remain schema-level.

  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 executes an HTTP request and extracts specific fields using dot-notation paths, distinguishing it from siblings like rest_request (full response) and rest_describe (schema). The example reinforces the purpose.

  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 explicit guidance for autonomous context resolution when endpoints come from code analysis, including steps to investigate parameters before calling. It implies usage for field extraction rather than full responses, but does not explicitly contrast with siblings or state when not to use.

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

• rest_requestA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

  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 discloses the smart-truncation threshold (50000 bytes), the token resolution chain, and that the tool will ask the user for a token on 401/403. However, it does not explicitly warn about destructive side effects (e.g., DELETE, POST can modify data), though the method parameter implies this. The description is largely transparent but could be more explicit about potential data mutations.

  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 relatively long but well-structured with clear sections (core purpose, token resolution, truncation, alternatives, autonomous context resolution). It is front-loaded with the most important information. While the autonomous context resolution section is verbose, it is necessary for the intended use case. The description could be slightly more concise, but it earns its length.

  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 (5 parameters, no output schema, used for type extraction), the description covers base URL, token resolution, truncation, and sibling alternatives well. However, it lacks details about the response format (e.g., structure including status code, headers, body). The description says 'full response' but does not elaborate, which is a gap for a tool used to extract types from responses. The autonomous context resolution is thorough, but the lack of output schema information reduces completeness.

  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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add significant new meaning to the parameters beyond what is already in the schema. It mentions path params, query params, and body in the context resolution section, but that is more about usage patterns than parameter semantics. The schema already provides clear descriptions for each parameter, so the description adds marginal value here.

  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: 'Execute an HTTP request and return the full response'. It specifies the base URL, token resolution, and truncation behavior. It also explicitly distinguishes from siblings by directing users to 'rest_describe for structure only, or rest_types for TypeScript interfaces', making the tool's role in the family unambiguous.

  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 extensive usage guidance, including when to use alternatives (rest_describe, rest_types), token resolution strategy, and a detailed 'AUTONOMOUS CONTEXT RESOLUTION' section that instructs on how to investigate source code to find path params, query params, and body. It also advises on handling missing tokens (ask user) and using representative test values for dynamic inputs. This is explicit and actionable.

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

• rest_typesA
  4.3/5.0
  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 of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states this is a read/write operation that makes HTTP requests and generates type definitions, discloses the base URL, and explicitly states that generated interfaces should always be presented without being asked. Could be a 5 if it mentioned rate limits, error handling, or response format limitations, but the autonomous resolution workflow adds significant transparency.

  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 comprehensive but somewhat lengthy, containing multiple sections (primary purpose, autonomous context resolution). It is front-loaded with the core purpose but could be more concise by trimming the autonomous context workflow (which could be separate guidance). Every sentence earns its place, but the workflow section is verbose for a tool description.

  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 moderate complexity (6 params, no output schema, no annotation safety net), the description covers purpose, usage, autonomous resolution, and base URL. The lack of output schema means it could explain what the generated interfaces look like or return format. Still, it provides enough for an agent to function correctly, and the missing pieces (error behavior, rate limits) are not critical for the primary use case.

  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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the typeName parameter's purpose (use domain-specific names) and the endpoint resolution pattern, but does not provide additional meaning beyond the schema for body, query, headers, or method parameters. The schema's descriptions already cover the basics adequately.

  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 executes an HTTP request and generates TypeScript interfaces from the response, with specific verb 'Execute...generate' and resource 'HTTP request... TypeScript interfaces'. It distinguishes itself from siblings by marking itself as the PRIMARY tool for feature-port and migration workflows, contrasting with other rest_ tools.

  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 provides when to use: PRIMARY for feature-port and migration workflows. Provides detailed when-not-to-use guidance with a comprehensive autonomous context resolution workflow that tells the agent to investigate source code for missing parameters instead of blindly calling. Names no alternatives explicitly but implies other rest_ tools are for different purposes.

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

• rest_describeA
  4.6/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns response structure and TypeScript interfaces without the full body, which is key behavior. It also states the base URL and that the endpoint is resolved to that base. However, it doesn't disclose potential side effects (e.g., does it modify data? It's HTTP request, could be destructive for POST/PUT/DELETE) or state that no authentication is handled (since rest_set_token exists). The description implies a read-only analysis but doesn't explicitly say it doesn't mutate data, which is a slight gap. But given the context, it's reasonably transparent about what it returns and how it works.

  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 somewhat long but well-structured: it starts with the main purpose, then PRIMARY PURPOSE, then base URL, then nested context resolution guidance. However, the "AUTONOMOUS CONTEXT RESOLUTION" section is quite verbose with numbered steps and detail. It could be trimmed, but each sentence adds value—especially the guidance for dynamic values. It is front-loaded with purpose and key behavior, so it's appropriately structured despite being long. Slight deduct for verbosity.

  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?

  This is a complex tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, no output schema. The description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, usage guidance, parameter resolution, and expected output (TypeScript interfaces). It includes a base URL and explains how to handle dynamic parameters. For the tool's complexity, the description is complete and provides enough information for an AI to invoke it correctly. The lack of output schema is compensated by explaining what the tool returns. Overall, it's a thorough description that leaves little to guess.

  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 description coverage is 100%, so each parameter has a basic description. The description adds significant meaning beyond the schema: it explains how to resolve parameters in context (e.g., "Path params (:id, :slug) — find actual values in component data..."), and explains the default for typeName ("Root interface name... default: "ApiResponse"" which is also in schema but the description emphasizes the default). The description also clarifies that endpoint is path only and resolved to base URL, which adds context beyond the schema's description. This elevates the parameter semantics beyond baseline.

  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: "Execute an HTTP request and return the response structure (keys, types, array lengths) AND generated TypeScript interfaces — without the full body." It uses a specific verb (execute) and resource (HTTP request), and distinguishes itself from siblings by highlighting the generated TypeScript interfaces and its focus on structure, not full body. The purpose is further reinforced with "PRIMARY PURPOSE" and "Always present the generated TypeScript interfaces without being asked".

  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 guidance on when to use this tool: "Ideal for large responses." and implies it is for API response analysis. It also gives detailed instructions on how to resolve parameters when the endpoint comes from code analysis (feature-port, migration, etc.), including steps to find path params, query params, request body, and fallback to representative test values. This is comprehensive and distinguishes it from siblings by focusing on type derivation rather than raw request execution.

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

• rest_set_tokenA
  4.6/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses persistence ('persists until server restart'), resolution order, and error handling behavior. It also clarifies the token format (without 'Bearer ' prefix). Minor omission: does not mention whether setting a token overwrites an existing one, but overall transparent.

  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 tightly written—two concise sentences plus a resolution list. Every sentence adds information without redundancy. The main purpose is front-loaded, making it easy to parse.

  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 single-parameter setter with no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage context, persistence, and error guidance. It could mention that the tool can be called multiple times (overwrites) or that it's memory-only, but overall it's sufficiently complete for the tool's simplicity.

  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 coverage is 100% with a description for 'token'. The description adds value beyond the schema by specifying 'without "Bearer " prefix' and explaining the token resolution context where this parameter fits, which aids correct usage.

  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 'Set the bearer token for this session', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools (e.g., rest_request for making requests) by focusing on token setup.

  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 guidance on when to use this tool: it explains the token resolution order (project .env, MCP config env var, then this tool) and advises asking the user for a token on 401/403 errors if none found. This tells the agent exactly when to invoke it vs relying on other sources.

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