Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• vcv_validateA
  3.5/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  The description conveys a non-mutating validation behavior and specifies what is checked, which is useful. However, with no annotations, it does not disclose side effects, success/failure behavior, or whether the file is modified in any way, so the agent must infer a lot from the word 'Check'.

  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 with no wasted words. It immediately states the action and the target resource while remaining easy to scan.

  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 tool with an output schema, the description is mostly adequate because return values are presumably covered by that schema. It still lacks usage context relative to sibling tools and does not fully clarify behavioral side effects, leaving moderate gaps.

  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, and it partially does by indicating the required 'path' parameter refers to a .vcv file. It does not specify path format, file accessibility, or constraints, but for a single simple parameter this is modestly helpful.

  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, 'Check', identifies the exact resource (a .vcv file), and names two concrete validation concerns: structural problems and missing plugins. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like vcv_read, vcv_write, vcv_create, and vcv_library_search.

  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 explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over its siblings. No conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions are stated, leaving the agent to infer usage from the generic 'Check a .vcv file' phrasing.

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

• vcv_createA
  3.7/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully reveals that module ids, plugin versions, and positions are auto-filled, and that cables reference modules by index. However, it does not disclose overwrite behavior, failure conditions, or other side effects beyond creating a file.

  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?

  Three sentences, with the core purpose front-loaded and each subsequent sentence adding a meaningful behavioral detail. There is no filler or repetition of schema 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?

  The description adequately covers the main creation behavior and the module/cable relationship, and an output schema exists so return values need not be elaborated. However, it omits overwrite semantics and the meaning of rack_version, which an agent needs to safely invoke the tool on an existing file.

  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?

  Top-level schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for modules and cables by explaining auto-fill behavior and index-based cable references. However, path, overwrite, and rack_version are left unexplained, leaving several parameters semantically ambiguous.

  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 opens with 'Create a new .vcv file', which names a specific verb and resource, and clarifies the input is a list of modules and cables. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like vcv_read, vcv_write, vcv_validate, and vcv_library_search.

  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 generating a .vcv patch file from structured module/cable data, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over vcv_write or mention prerequisites such as plugin availability. Usage context is present but exclusions and alternatives are not.

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

• vcv_library_searchA
  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 adds useful behavioral context: the search is scoped to the local library and returns 'exact' slugs intended for vcv_create. However, it does not disclose behavior with empty query/tags, limit semantics, error conditions, or explicitly confirm it is read-only, though 'search' strongly implies non-destructive.

  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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope. The second sentence adds the output purpose without redundancy. Every clause earns 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?

  For a read-only search tool with an output schema, the description covers the essentials: scope (local library), search dimensions (text/tags), and the output contract (exact slugs for vcv_create). Given an output schema exists, return values need not be explained. The only notable gap is limit behavior, but the schema's default provides a hint.

  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 low (properties have titles only, no descriptions), so the description must compensate. It maps 'free text' to query and 'tags' to tags, covering two of three parameters. The limit parameter remains unexplained — no indication of max results or behavior when omitted.

  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 ('Search'), a resource ('modules installed in the local Rack library'), and the search criteria ('free text and/or tags'). The mention that it returns slugs 'to use in vcv_create' ties it to its sibling and clarifies its role in the workflow. This clearly distinguishes it from the read/write/create/validate siblings.

  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 workflow — search first, then vcv_create with the returned slugs — but never explicitly says 'use this when you need slugs' or contrasts it with vcv_read/write/validate. The when-to-use is inferable from the vcv_create mention, yet the description gives no exclusions or explicit alternatives.

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

• vcv_readA
  4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does provide useful detail about what the tool exposes: Rack version, modules, cables, asset list, and a summary. 'Read' conveys a non-mutating operation, though the description could have clarified error behaviors or file-format expectations.

  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. It states the core action first and then lists the returned content without any filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

  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 tool with one parameter and an output schema present, the description provides enough context about what the tool does and what it returns. It could be slightly more complete with explicit mention of file-not-found or invalid-format behavior, but those are minor gaps.

  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 schema has a single 'path' parameter with no description coverage. The description indirectly clarifies that path should refer to a .vcv file, but it does not add explicit detail about path format, validation, or accepted file variations beyond the extension.

  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 begins with a specific verb and resource: 'Read a .vcv file' and then lists exactly what is included: Rack version, modules, cables, asset list, and a text summary. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like vcv_write, vcv_create, and vcv_validate, which imply different operations.

  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 tool is for reading/inspecting an existing .vcv file, which is reasonable, but it does not explicitly state when to choose it over alternatives or when not to use it. No sibling tool is referenced as an alternative, so the guidance is only implicit.

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

• vcv_writeA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that validation happens first, that overwrites are refused unless overwrite=true, and that keep_assets_from preserves asset files. This is meaningful behavioral context beyond the bare schema.

  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, no filler, and the most important safeguards (validation, overwrite refusal) are front-loaded. The keep_assets_from usage note earns its place by providing crucial guidance.

  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 4-parameter write tool with no annotations, the description covers validation, overwrite policy, and asset preservation. It does not mention failure behavior or output format, but an output schema exists and the core calling contract is well specified.

  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%, so the description must compensate. It does: 'patch' is explained as a full patch.json dict, 'overwrite' is tied to refusal behavior, and 'keep_assets_from' is explained as preserving asset files. Only 'path' is left implicit, but that is fairly self-evident from the file-write context.

  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 action: writing a full patch.json dict to a .vcv file. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like vcv_read, vcv_validate, and vcv_library_search, and gives a clear sense of the resource involved.

  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 gives explicit guidance for a key case: using keep_assets_from when saving an edited copy. It also notes overwrite behavior. It does not explicitly contrast with vcv_create, but the write/validate framing implies the appropriate scenarios clearly enough.

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