Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• export_archimate_xmlC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the basic function. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires specific permissions, what happens to the exported data, rate limits, or error conditions. The description is minimal and lacks essential context for a tool with complex parameters.

  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 that states the core function without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the essential information, making it easy to parse quickly.

  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 3 complex parameters (including nested arrays and objects), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., file content, download link, status), error handling, or practical usage context. The minimal description leaves significant gaps given the tool's 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?

  Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 3 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, maintaining the baseline score of 3 for adequate but not enhanced parameter documentation.

  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 clearly states the action ('Export') and resource ('ArchiMate model') with specific output format ('standard XML Open Exchange Format (.archimate)'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'generate_archimate_diagram' by focusing on export rather than diagram generation, but doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings like 'list_archimate_elements'.

  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?

  No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'generate_archimate_diagram' or 'validate_archimate_model'. The description implies usage for exporting models but doesn't specify prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions.

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

• validate_archimate_modelC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It states validation occurs 'against the ArchiMate 3.2 specification' but doesn't disclose what validation entails (e.g., syntax checks, semantic rules, error reporting), whether it's read-only (implied but not stated), or performance considerations (e.g., handling large arrays). This leaves significant gaps for a tool with two required parameters.

  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 that front-loads the core purpose without fluff. Every word contributes directly to understanding the tool's function (validate, ArchiMate elements/relationships, specification version). It avoids redundancy and is appropriately sized for the complexity.

  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 validation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what constitutes valid/invalid input, how results are returned (e.g., error messages, status codes), or edge cases (e.g., empty arrays). Given the tool's potential complexity (validating architectural models), more context on behavior and outputs is needed for effective use.

  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%, with clear descriptions for 'elements' and 'relationships' arrays. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying validation scope, but doesn't detail format expectations (e.g., valid 'type' values) or validation rules. Given high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't detract either.

  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 clearly states the action ('validate') and target ('ArchiMate elements and relationships') with specific reference to the ArchiMate 3.2 specification. It distinguishes this from siblings like export, generate, and list tools by focusing on validation. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with potential validation alternatives (e.g., schema-based vs. rule-based validation), keeping it from a perfect score.

  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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing valid element/relationship data), exclusions (e.g., not for partial models), or compare with sibling tools like list_archimate_elements for checking existence. Usage is implied only through the tool name and description, lacking explicit context.

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

• generate_archimate_diagramB
  3.1/5.0
  Behavior2/5

  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 states the tool generates diagrams but doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, if it modifies data, requires specific permissions, or has rate limits. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

  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 that front-loads the core action and key details (formats), with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, making it easy to parse quickly.

  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 moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on behavioral traits, usage context, or output specifics, leaving gaps that could hinder an agent's understanding despite the good schema coverage.

  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 the schema already documents all parameters ('elements', 'relationships', 'format') with detailed descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining parameter interactions or usage examples, but the high schema coverage justifies a baseline score of 3.

  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 clearly states the action ('Generate'), the resource ('ArchiMate diagrams'), and the output formats ('Mermaid or Draw.io format'), making the purpose evident. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'export_archimate_xml' (which exports XML rather than diagrams) or 'list_archimate_elements' (which lists elements rather than generating diagrams), missing full sibling 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 'export_archimate_xml' or 'validate_archimate_model'. It lacks context on prerequisites (e.g., needing elements and relationships as input) or exclusions, leaving usage unclear relative to siblings.

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

• list_archimate_relationshipsB
  3.1/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral context. It states it 'lists all available' types but doesn't disclose format, pagination, sorting, or any constraints. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

  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 that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff. It's appropriately sized for a simple listing tool and front-loads the essential information.

  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 annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what 'available' means (e.g., from a database, file, or API), the return format, or any behavioral traits. Given the lack of structured data, more context is needed for effective use.

  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 description coverage is 100%, so there's no need for parameter documentation in the description. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, as the description appropriately doesn't waste space on non-existent parameters.

  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 clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('ArchiMate relationship types'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_archimate_elements', which follows a similar pattern for a different resource type.

  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?

  No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the name implies it's for listing relationship types, there's no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or how it differs from other listing/exporting tools in the sibling set.

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

• list_archimate_elementsB
  3.4/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but doesn't describe important behavioral aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, what format the output takes, whether it returns all elements at once or uses pagination, or any rate limits or authentication requirements.

  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 that communicates the core purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple listing tool and front-loads the essential information.

  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 annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the output looks like (e.g., list format, structure, whether it includes element properties beyond layers), which is critical for an agent to understand how to use the results. The description should compensate for the lack of structured output information.

  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 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'layer' clearly documented as an optional filter with enumerated values. The description doesn't add any parameter information beyond what's in the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

  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 specific action ('List'), resource ('ArchiMate 3.2 element types'), and scope ('with their layers'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'list_archimate_relationships' by focusing on element types rather than relationships.

  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 retrieving element types with layer information, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_archimate_relationships' or 'validate_archimate_model'. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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