Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• atera_alerts_listB
  3/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the pagination behavior, which is marginally useful but largely redundant with the page/itemsInPage parameters in the schema. No additional context about defaults, ordering, or filtering is provided.

  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 sentence with zero wasted words and front-loads the core action. It is appropriately sized, though its brevity borders on under-specification rather than deliberate conciseness.

  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?

  For a simple list operation with strong annotations and only two optional params, the description is minimally adequate. However, without an output schema or any mention of what the returned alerts contain, and with no sibling differentiation, an agent gets just enough to attempt the call but not enough to be confident about the response or when this tool is preferred.

  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?

  With 0% schema description coverage, the description bears full responsibility for explaining the two parameters, but 'with pagination' is the only hint. The parameter names (page, itemsInPage) are somewhat self-explanatory, yet the description does not clarify semantics like 1-based indexing, the 100-item cap, or how they interact.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose4/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('Atera alerts'), making the tool's function immediately clear. The resource name itself differentiates it from siblings like atera_tickets_list or atera_agents_list, though it does not explicitly name a sibling or scope distinction.

  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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like atera_tickets_list or atera_health_check. There are no stated conditions, exclusions, or mentions of sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the resource name.

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

• atera_customers_listB
  3.4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description doesn't need to restate safety. The mention of 'Atera pagination' adds a minor behavioral hint that the tool returns paginated results, but it doesn't clarify page size limits or how pagination is signaled. With annotations covering the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

  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?

  Single sentence with zero waste. It names the operation and adds the pagination qualifier, which is front-loaded and efficient. No unnecessary filler.

  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?

  For a simple read-only list tool with no required parameters and an output schema absent, the description plus annotations are mostly sufficient. The main gap is that it doesn't explain what customer fields are returned or any list-specific behavior beyond 'Atera pagination'. Given low complexity, this is acceptable but not exceptional.

  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 0%, so the description carries some burden, but the tool has only two self-explanatory parameters, page and itemsInPage. The phrase 'Atera pagination' hints that these params control paging, but it doesn't explain that itemsInPage is capped at 100 (which the schema does show). Baseline 3 is fair since the schema is minimal and the parameter names are intuitive.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose4/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description states the verb 'list' and the resource 'customer records', clearly distinguishing it from siblings like atera_customers_get (get a single customer). Minor weakness: it doesn't mention the context or what the list is meant for, but purpose is clear enough.

  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 a paginated listing operation, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool instead of atera_customers_get or other list tools. The sibling list helps an agent infer, but there is no explicit when-to-use or alternative routing.

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

• atera_agents_listA
  3.5/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds some behavioral context by noting agents are 'installed' and that results can be filtered by customer, but it does not describe pagination behavior, default page sizes, or data freshness. This modest value beyond annotations warrants a 3.

  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, focused sentence with no filler. It front-loads the primary action and resource, then adds the filtering option. Every word earns its place.

  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?

  For a tool with no output schema and a sparse description, key context is missing: the response format, behavior of page/itemsInPage, and any ordering or default page size. The read-only/idempotent annotations help, but an agent should know more to correctly invoke pagination and interpret results.

  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?

  Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does clarify that customerId acts as a filter ('optionally filtered by customer'), but it provides no explanation for the page and itemsInPage parameters beyond their names. An agent is left to infer pagination semantics without any guidance on defaults or limits.

  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 a specific verb ('List'), resource ('installed Atera agents'), and optional filter ('by customer'). It clearly separates this list operation from sibling atera_agents_get, which implies retrieving a single agent. The title reinforces the same, making the purpose unambiguous.

  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 when to use this tool (when you want a list of agents, possibly for one customer) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. For instance, it does not say 'use atera_agents_get for a single agent.' The guidance is inferred from the verb 'List' rather than explicitly stated.

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

• atera_tickets_listA
  3.5/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so safety is covered. The description adds that the operation supports pagination and an optional status filter, but does not reveal default page size, pagination behavior, or order of results—so modest addition.

  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?

  One front-loaded sentence; every phrase carries meaning ('List Atera tickets', 'pagination', 'optional status filter'). No filler.

  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?

  For a simple read-only list with three optional parameters, the description is adequate for basic invocation, but it omits accepted ticketStatus values and pagination behavior defaults, and there is no output schema to clarify the return shape. Could be stronger given zero parameter descriptions.

  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 0%, so the description must compensate. It groups page/itemsInPage under 'pagination' and ticketStatus under 'optional status filter,' which gives general meaning, but it does not specify allowed ticketStatus values or pagination defaults.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose4/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  States a specific verb and resource: 'List Atera tickets,' and adds pagination and status filtering scope. It is clear but does not explicitly contrast with atera_tickets_get or other list tools, so sibling differentiation is implied by the verb and name rather than spelled out.

  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 gives contextual clues—list operation, optional status filter—but never states when to choose this over atera_tickets_get or atera_alerts_list. There is no excluded condition or alternative reference, so the guidance remains implied.

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

• atera_capabilitiesA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a little context about what is shown, but does not reveal output format, size, or whether any setup is needed. It does not contradict the annotations.

  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, focused sentence with no filler. The main subject and action are immediately clear.

  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?

  For a parameterless, read-only, idempotent tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently states what the agent will learn by invoking it. Nothing critical is missing for a call to be made 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 tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter burden for the description to carry. A baseline of 4 applies to parameterless tools.

  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 a specific verb ('Show') and a clear resource: connector policy and Atera domains covered by the endpoint catalog. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like health checks, account retrieval, and entity lists.

  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?

  There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings, no mention of it being a discovery/reference tool, and no explicit exclusions. The read-only annotations imply a safe inspection call, but the description itself offers no usage direction.

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

• atera_agents_getA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description does not need to repeat safety behavior. The description adds the 'one' singular result expectation and the numeric ID requirement, but does not disclose error/not-found behavior or return details. Consistent with annotations, adds modest extra context.

  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?

  One simple, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It communicates action, target, and identification method efficiently.

  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 read operation with readOnly and idempotent annotations, the description is nearly complete. 'Get one Atera agent' implies the returned entity, and the lack of an output schema is not a serious gap at this simplicity level. A bit more detail on not-found behavior would make it fully complete.

  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 0%, so the description must compensate. The phrase 'by numeric agent ID' identifies the parameter as an agent identifier and notes it is numeric, which aligns with the integer type but largely restates the property name. For a single obvious parameter, this is minimally adequate but adds little beyond the 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?

  States a specific verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('Atera agent'), and a restrictive scope ('one', 'by numeric agent ID'). This cleanly distinguishes it from sibling tools like atera_agents_list, which fetches multiple agents.

  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 implies the right use case: retrieve a single agent when its numeric ID is known, versus pulling a list. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an AI agent to select it appropriately.

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

• atera_tickets_getA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the response includes 'fields returned by Atera,' indicating full field coverage, but it does not disclose not-found behavior or error conditions. 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 a single efficient sentence with no filler. The key action and identifying information are front-loaded, and the trailing clause adds useful response context without bloating the definition.

  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 read-only, idempotent get-by-ID tool with one parameter, the description is nearly complete. The annotations handle side-effect disclosure, and 'including fields returned by Atera' gives a reasonable expectation of the response. It could mention not-found behavior, but that is a minor gap.

  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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. Saying 'numeric ticket ID' reinforces the schema's integer type and clarifies the parameter's role, but it does not add deeper meaning such as where the ID comes from or how it maps to Atera. For a single simple integer parameter, this is minimally adequate.

  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 a specific verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('one ticket'), and the identifying mechanism ('by numeric ticket ID'). This clearly differentiates it from the sibling atera_tickets_list, which is for retrieving multiple tickets.

  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 clearly implies the tool should be used when a single ticket is needed and its numeric ID is known. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the 'one ticket by numeric ticket ID' phrasing provides clear context against the sibling list tool.

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

• atera_customers_getA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  The readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations already disclose the main behavioral traits, and the description is consistent with them. It does not add extra behavioral context such as error behavior for an unknown customer ID, but with annotations present the minimal disclosure is acceptable.

  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?

  One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to identifying the action, the resource, and the parameter.

  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 one-parameter, read-only, idempotent getter, the description is nearly complete. The absence of an output schema is partially offset by the simple nature of the operation, though a bit more detail on response or not-found behavior would make it fully 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?

  With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by identifying the parameter as the numeric Atera customer ID. This is the only parameter and the description gives enough meaning for an agent to populate customerId correctly, although it does not add details about where the ID comes from.

  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 ('Get') and resource ('one customer') and adds the identifying scope ('by numeric Atera customer ID'). It clearly distinguishes this from atera_customers_list, which would retrieve multiple customers.

  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 phrase 'one customer by numeric Atera customer ID' gives a clear usage context: use this tool when you have a specific numeric customer ID and need that single customer. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the singular-by-ID framing is sufficient for such a simple getter.

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

• atera_account_getA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a meaningful behavioral guarantee—'without exposing the API token'—which is not captured by the annotations and gives an agent confidence about security-sensitive behavior.

  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 front-loads the core purpose and adds a key security qualifier. Every word earns its place, with no repetition of the title or schema.

  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?

  For a zero-parameter, read-only tool with annotations covering safety, the description is complete enough for correct invocation. No output schema exists, but the resource is clearly identified, and an agent can decide to call this tool without needing further detail.

  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 coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter semantics to document. With no parameters, the baseline of 4 applies, and the description adds no unnecessary parameter-related detail.

  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 ('Get') and resource ('authenticated Atera account context'), and clarifies it does so 'without exposing the API token.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like atera_customers_get or atera_agents_get, which target different resources.

  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 the tool is for retrieving the current authenticated account context, but it does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like atera_health_check or atera_capabilities. There are no exclusions or alternative tool names mentioned, so usage guidance is only implied.

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

• atera_health_checkA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds a meaningful behavioral detail beyond those annotations: it performs the check 'without exposing the token', which is important security context for an agent deciding whether this tool is safe to invoke.

  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, front-loaded sentence that states the action, target, and a key security property. There is no redundancy or wasted wording.

  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, parameterless health check with readOnly and idempotent annotations, the description is largely complete. It could optionally mention the returned status format, but the absence of parameters and low complexity make this a minor gap rather than a serious omission.

  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 description coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter detail missing. The description appropriately focuses on behavior rather than inputs.

  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 a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('Atera API connectivity and authentication'). It is unambiguous and easily distinguished from the sibling tools, which all focus on retrieving or listing specific Atera entities.

  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 makes the tool's purpose self-evident: use it to verify Atera API connectivity and authentication. It does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternatives, but no sibling tool offers the same health-check function, so the usage context is clear enough.

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