Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• call_endpointA
  4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Without annotations, the description discloses important behaviors: validation against a catalog, required authorization for mutations, and automatic backups. This provides good transparency about safety and 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 concise with four sentences, each conveying necessary information: purpose, validation, mutation behavior, and usage tip. No wasted words.

  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 validation and mutation authorization but omits response format and error handling. Given the tool's complexity and lack of output schema, more details on response and optional parameters would improve completeness.

  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?

  The main description mentions endpoint_name and required path parameters but does not elaborate on other parameters like body, files, query, file_field, or authorization fields. Given 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate but falls short.

  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 the tool calls an Invoice Ninja API endpoint and returns its response. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that list or describe endpoints.

  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 advises using describe_endpoint first to learn parameters and specifies authorization requirements for mutating endpoints. However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid using the tool or when to use list_endpoints instead.

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

• list_endpointsA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It does not explicitly state the tool is read-only, mention authentication, rate limits, or side effects. The read-only nature is implied by 'list' and filter options, but not confirmed.

  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?

  Two sentences: one defines the output fields, the second gives usage context and links to siblings. No wasted words, front-loaded with 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?

  No output schema, but description lists return fields. Could mention output is an array, but overall adequate for a discovery tool. Provides enough context for usage with siblings.

  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 0% per context, so description must compensate. It explains each filter: search (case-insensitive substring), category (omit to see all), mutating (boolean for read-vs-write). Adds value by suggesting to call without args to see categories.

  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 lists API endpoints with specific fields (slug, method, path, etc.) and distinguishes from siblings by guiding the user to first use this tool, then describe_endpoint, then call_endpoint.

  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 ('to discover which endpoint to call') and provides a clear workflow with siblings: use this for discovery, describe_endpoint for parameters, call_endpoint to execute.

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

• describe_endpointA
  4.4/5.0
  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 describes the return content in detail (method, path, parameters, request-body, mutation info), but doesn't explicitly state that the tool is read-only or mention any error scenarios. Still, it offers substantial transparency about what to expect.

  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 followed by a concise action directive. Every word adds value—no filler, no 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?

  Given one parameter (well-described in schema) and no output schema, the description covers what the tool returns (full specification) and when to use it. It could optionally mention that the output is a JSON object, but is otherwise complete for its complexity.

  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 already provides a description for the sole parameter 'endpoint_name' with examples and a reference to list_endpoints. The tool description adds only usage advice ('Call this before call_endpoint'), not additional parameter semantics. Schema coverage is effectively 100% from the schema itself, so baseline 3 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 returns the full specification for a single endpoint, including method, path, parameters, request-body fields, and mutation info. It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly positioning it as a prerequisite to call_endpoint.

  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 tells when to use: 'Call this before call_endpoint to know exactly what to pass.' This provides clear guidance on usage context relative to siblings.

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