Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• pinterest_get_authorization_urlA
  3.8/5.0
  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. It does disclose a side effect (starting a local listener) and that it returns URL plus instructions, but it does not detail blocking behavior, timeout, or what 'safe connection instructions' entail. This is helpful but incomplete.

  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, well-front-loaded sentence that conveys the core action, side effect, and output without waste.

  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 tool with no annotations or output schema, the description provides sufficient context to use it: it starts a listener and returns a URL with instructions. It does not explicitly mention user interaction or return format, but these are somewhat implied by 'safe connection instructions.'

  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 single parameter 'scopes' is fully described in the schema (100% coverage) with 'Optional OAuth scopes override. Otherwise PINTEREST_OAUTH_SCOPES is used.' The description adds no additional parameter context, so a baseline of 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's action ('Starts the local Pinterest OAuth callback listener') and its output ('returns the authorization URL plus safe connection instructions'). This distinguishes it from siblings (server_status, connection_status, disconnect) which are status/disconnect 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 implies this is the tool to initiate OAuth authorization by starting a callback listener, and it is distinct from the sibling status/disconnect tools. However, there is no explicit statement about when to use it versus alternatives or any prerequisites (e.g., needing PINTEREST_OAUTH_SCOPES).

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

• pinterest_disconnectA
  4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  The description discloses that the tool securely removes locally stored authorization data and explicitly states that tokens are not returned. However, it does not address whether server-side tokens are revoked or what happens if no connection exists, though the focus on 'locally stored' implies a local-only operation.

  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 of about 12 words. It is front-loaded with the action ('removes') and includes the key scope ('locally stored') and a behavioral caveat ('without returning tokens') without any waste.

  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 simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description covers the essential behavior. It could be enhanced by noting whether the server-side token remains valid, but it gives sufficient context for the agent to understand the tool's purpose and scope.

  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?

  This tool has zero parameters, and the input schema is empty. Therefore, there are no parameter semantics to explain, and the description does not need to add any parameter-related information.

  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 uses the specific verb 'removes' and clearly identifies the resource as 'locally stored Pinterest OAuth authorization data'. It also clarifies that it does not return tokens, distinguishing it from sibling tools like pinterest_get_authorization_url.

  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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. There is no mention of alternatives or conditions for use, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool name and context.

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

• pinterest_server_statusA
  4.1/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It does add a useful guarantee ('without exposing secrets'), which implies a security-conscious read operation. However, it does not mention whether authentication is required, return format, or any rate limits. For a zero-parameter status tool, this is acceptable 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 that is concise and front-loaded. It states the core purpose and the key security caveat without wasted words. Every part earns its place.

  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 the simplicity of the tool (zero parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is sufficiently complete. It tells the agent what the tool does and the main behavioral concern (secret exposure). No additional context seems necessary for correct invocation.

  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 schema coverage is 100% (empty schema). The description correctly adds no parameter details, as there are none. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate for tools with no parameters, and the description does not introduce confusion.

  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 uses a specific verb ('Returns') and clearly identifies the resource ('Pinterest Business MCP server configuration status'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like pinterest_connection_status by focusing on configuration status rather than connection health, and adds a security qualifier ('without exposing secrets').

  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 usage for checking server configuration status, and the name differentiates it from sibling tools. However, it provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or mentions alternatives (e.g., 'use pinterest_connection_status for connection checks'). This is clear context but lacks explicit exclusions.

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

• pinterest_connection_statusA
  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 that the check is local and that tokens are not exposed, which is a useful privacy behavior. However, it doesn't state whether this is a safe read-only operation, whether it can error, or what happens if no account is configured.

  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 conveys all essential information without redundancy. It front-loads the purpose and includes a security caveat, making every word earn its place.

  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 simplicity (0 params, no output schema), the description is largely sufficient for an agent to understand what it does and when to call it. The absence of a stated return format (boolean vs text) is a minor gap, but 'Returns whether' strongly implies a boolean. The sibling context is handled fairly well with the 'locally' qualifier, though an explicit alternative reference would improve completeness.

  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 an empty schema. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and it adds value by clarifying the nature of the returned status. With 0 params, the baseline is 4, and the description introduces no parameter-related confusion.

  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 uses a specific verb 'Returns' and identifies the resource (whether a Pinterest account is connected locally). It differentiates from siblings like pinterest_server_status by specifying 'locally' and adds the important security context of not exposing tokens.

  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 are mentioned. The description implies the tool is for checking local connection status, but it doesn't compare with pinterest_server_status or explain when to prefer this over the authorization or disconnect sibling tools. It is clear enough but lacks explicit usage guidance.

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