Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• github_org_packagesA
  3.6/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations provided, but description explains return data includes name, type, visibility, and repository details. However, it omits behavioral traits like pagination, sorting, or rate limits.

  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, front-loaded sentences with no filler. Every sentence adds value.

  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?

  Adequate for a straightforward list tool. Describes output details, but lacks pagination info. With no output schema, slightly more detail would help, but overall sufficient.

  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 100%, so description adds minimal param info. It does not elaborate on the meaning or constraints beyond what the schema provides.

  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 'List all packages for a GitHub organization' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes well from sibling tools which focus on releases and repos.

  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 on when to use this versus alternatives. Lacks context about when not to use or prerequisites.

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

• github_release_infoA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It lists return fields (tag name, title, date, release notes) implying read-only access. However, it does not explicitly state side-effect-free operation, error conditions, or rate limit considerations, which are important for a tool with no annotation safety net.

  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 front-loaded: verb+resource in first, return fields in second, use case in third. No redundancy or filler. Every sentence adds value.

  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?

  With no output schema, the description adequately explains return fields (tag name, title, date, release notes). It covers the main aspects of a single-release lookup. Minor omissions: no mention of errors, status codes, or that the 'package' parameter is optional. Overall, reasonably complete for a simple info tool.

  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 baseline is 3. The description only reiterates version format support already present in the schema (e.g., 'v1.0.0, @1.0.0, 1.0.0'). It adds no new meaning beyond what the parameter descriptions already convey.

  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: 'Get detailed information about a specific GitHub release version.' It includes the verb 'get' and the resource 'release version', and differentiates from siblings like github_releases_list (list all) and github_releases_compare (compare) by emphasizing 'specific'.

  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 provides a use case ('Perfect for understanding what changed...'), but does not explicitly advise when not to use this tool or name alternatives. An agent would benefit from knowing to use github_releases_list for browsing or github_releases_compare for diffs.

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

• github_releases_compareA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavior. It states the output format and version format support, but does not cover error conditions, rate limits, or whether the range is inclusive/exclusive.

  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 purpose, no fluff. Every sentence adds value.

  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?

  Covers use case, output, and version formats but lacks details on error handling, pagination, or inclusivity of versions. With no output schema, more context could be beneficial.

  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 100% so parameters are well-documented. The description adds context on output and version formats but does not significantly expand on individual parameter meaning 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?

  The description clearly states the tool compares two GitHub release versions, specifies the output (chronological list with full release notes), and distinguishes it from siblings like github_release_info (single release) and github_releases_list (list all).

  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 use cases (changelogs, migration guides) and when it's ideal, but does not explicitly mention when not to use or provide alternatives beyond implicit differentiation.

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

• github_repo_readmeA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses it returns plain text, but does not mention error cases (e.g., missing README) or rate limits. Adequate for a simple read tool.

  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 action and value, no redundancy.

  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?

  Simple tool with no output schema; description covers primary function and use case. Could mention error behavior but not critical.

  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 100%, so description adds no extra parameter details. Adds context about monorepo use but not beyond 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?

  Description uses specific verb 'Fetch' and resource 'README file for a GitHub repository', clearly distinguishes from siblings which deal with releases and packages.

  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?

  States it is useful for discovering package names and documentation in monorepos, providing clear context. Does not mention when not to use or alternative tools.

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

• github_releases_listA
  4.1/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It mentions read-only behavior implicitly (listing releases) and describes output formatting and pagination. However, it does not disclose authentication requirements, rate limits, or potential side effects, which are typical for a listing tool.

  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 concise (a few sentences) and front-loaded with the main action. Every sentence adds value: purpose, key features, use cases. No unnecessary words.

  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 5 parameters and no output schema, the description covers main use cases but omits explanation of the 'package' parameter, which is present in the schema. It also doesn't explicitly state that 'owner' and 'repo' are required, though implied. This gap reduces 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?

  Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the 'rich formatting' (emojis) and the purpose of pagination and pre-release filtering, which reinforces but goes slightly beyond the schema details.

  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 'list' and resource 'releases' with a specific scope 'for a repository.' It highlights features like chronological order, emojis, pagination, and filtering, making it distinct from sibling tools like github_release_info (single release) and github_releases_compare (diff).

  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 clear usage context: 'Perfect for getting an overview of a project's release history, finding the latest version, or monitoring release frequency.' However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or direct alternatives, which would elevate it to a 5.

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