Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• demo_resumeA
  4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive. Description adds that output is deterministic and synthetic, and that it persists nothing. This supplements annotations well without contradiction.

  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 concise sentences: first explains purpose, second describes output and side effects. No wasted words, front-loaded effectively.

  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 zero parameters, no output schema, but annotations provide safety profile, description fully covers purpose, behavior, and return value (checkpoint, inconsistencies, next action). Complete for a demo tool.

  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?

  No parameters exist, and schema coverage is 100%. Description confirms 'takes no arguments', which is sufficient. Baseline 4 is appropriate.

  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?

  Description clearly states the tool shows what a future continuity resume can surface and lists its outputs (prior checkpoint, inconsistencies, next action). It distinguishes itself from sibling demo tools like demo_checkpoint by specifying it's a demo for 'continuity resume', but could be more direct.

  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?

  Description notes it takes no arguments and reads no tenant data, implying safe usage, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings like demo_checkpoint or groundwork_public_proof. No alternatives or exclusions mentioned.

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

• groundwork_public_proofA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it returns 'static registry metadata and the live public MCP URL' and clarifies it does not involve local measurement, tenant data access, or network calls.

  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 extremely concise with two sentences. Every word serves a purpose: stating usage, return value, and what the tool does not do. No redundancy.

  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 no output schema, the description fully explains return values ('static registry metadata and the live public MCP URL') and behaviors. For a zero-parameter tool, this is complete and sufficient.

  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 no parameters, and the schema coverage is 100%. The description confirms 'Takes no arguments', which adds no new semantic meaning but is consistent and clear.

  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 tool's purpose: 'locate measured Groundwork proof'. It specifies the verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like groundwork_public_status or groundwork_trial_contract, which slightly reduces clarity.

  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 'Use first' provides clear guidance on when to use the tool (as an initial step). It also explicitly states what the tool does not do ('does not measure locally, read tenant data, or make network calls'), helping avoid misuse.

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

• demo_checkpointA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds additional context by explicitly stating it performs no writes to workspace, checkpoint, tenant, or network, and describes the return value as deterministic and synthetic. No contradiction with 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?

  Three sentences, all essential. Front-loaded with usage context. No wasted words or redundancies.

  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?

  Despite no output schema, the description clearly explains the return value (deterministic synthetic completed-work summary and next action) and the tool's purpose, making it complete for a zero-parameter, read-only tool.

  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?

  There are no parameters, and the description confirms 'Takes no arguments.' With 0 parameters, the description adequately covers parameter semantics; baseline is 4.

  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 verb 'show' and the resource 'shape of a continuity checkpoint', and it explicitly mentions usage after demo_resume, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like demo_resume, groundwork_public_proof, etc.

  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 provides explicit usage context ('Use after demo_resume') but does not mention when not to use it or list alternative tools for similar tasks.

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

• groundwork_trial_contractA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, which cover safety and idempotency. The description adds that the tool takes no arguments and returns specific data, plus it explicitly negates trial creation, which is helpful beyond 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 very concise at three sentences, with the most critical usage guidance front-loaded. Every sentence adds value: usage context, what it returns, and what it doesn't do.

  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?

  With no output schema, the description adequately explains the return value ('access boundaries and the controlling product-terms URL'). It also covers the tool's scope and limitations. No further context is needed for this simple tool.

  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 schema has zero parameters, so there is nothing to explain. The description correctly states 'Takes no arguments,' matching the schema. With 100% coverage, the baseline is 4.

  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 purpose: to distinguish the credential-free local demo from the authenticated hosted product before recommending signup. It specifies that it returns access boundaries and a product-terms URL, making the action and resource unambiguous.

  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 explicitly says 'Use before recommending signup,' providing clear context for when to invoke the tool. It also clarifies what the tool does not do ('does not create a trial or entitlement'), but does not directly compare with sibling tools.

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

• groundwork_public_statusA
  4.9/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. Description adds value by specifying the exact return items and the limitation of not reporting live health, going beyond what annotations provide.

  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, front-loaded with usage context, and no wasted words. Efficient and 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?

  Given zero parameters, no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description fully explains what the tool returns and its limitations. Complete for an agent to understand and invoke 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?

  No parameters. Schema coverage is 100% (empty). Description doesn't need to explain parameters; baseline 4 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?

  Clearly specifies the tool's purpose: to understand product and connection paths after public proof. Distinguishes from sibling tools like groundwork_public_proof (which is the prerequisite) and demo_checkpoint/resume (which handle different functionality).

  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 'Use after public proof' and notes what it does not do ('It does not report live health'). Provides clear context and an exclusion, helping the agent decide when (not) to use it.

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