Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• list_tagsA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations are provided, but the description discloses read-only intent ('list'), scope ('public GitHub repository'), and recency ('most recent'). It does not cover rate limits or error scenarios, but is adequate for a simple list 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 efficient sentences: the first states the core purpose, the second provides a practical use case. No unnecessary words.

  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 tool with 3 fully described parameters and no output schema, the description is fairly complete: it specifies scope (public), recency (most recent), and a downstream tool tie-in. Could mention return format or default ordering.

  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% with each parameter described. The description adds 'most recent' context and a usage purpose, but does not clarify how limit interacts with the 'most recent' ordering or the format of returned ref names.

  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 'list the most recent Git tags/releases for a public GitHub repository', a specific verb and resource. It also hints at differentiation by noting it should be used first for generate_changelog, though not explicitly distinguishing from compare_refs.

  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 an implicit usage cue: 'Use this first to find valid ref names for generate_changelog'. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and does not mention alternatives like compare_refs.

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

• compare_refsA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Describes the output as raw commit diff without categorization. Does not disclose rate limits, authentication needs (though 'public repository' implies no auth), or behavior with large diffs. Adequate for a simple read operation given no 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?

  Single sentence, no redundant words, front-loaded with key action and scope. Every word 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?

  Given no output schema and simple parameter set, the description covers the tool's purpose, scope, and key constraint (public repo, no categorization). Could optionally mention output format (e.g., diff text) but sufficient for selection.

  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 descriptions for 'base' and 'head' are present (50% coverage), with examples like 'v1.2.0' and 'main'. The tool description mentions 'two Git refs' but does not clarify 'owner' and 'repo' beyond 'public GitHub repository'. Partially compensates for missing schema descriptions.

  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 states verb 'Show', resource 'raw commit diff', and scope 'between two Git refs in a public GitHub repository'. Explicitly notes 'without categorization', distinguishing it from sibling 'generate_changelog' which likely categorizes.

  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?

  Provides context that the diff is raw and uncategorized, implicitly guiding agents to use this tool when they need a pure diff and alternative tools like 'generate_changelog' for categorized output. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use or named alternatives.

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

• generate_changelogA
  4.7/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Discloses the internal algorithm (Conventional Commits parsing with fallback to keyword heuristics), which is beyond the basic purpose. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, mention error handling, or note rate limits. The lack of annotations increases the burden, but the description covers essential behavioral traits well.

  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, no filler. First sentence front-loads the core purpose, second adds algorithm details, third gives usage guidance. Every sentence is essential and well-organized.

  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 the tool's complexity (5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description sufficiently covers purpose, algorithm, usage sequence, and output format. It provides enough context for an agent to invoke the tool correctly without additional information.

  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 100% schema coverage, the schema already describes each parameter. The description adds value by explaining that from_ref and to_ref are 'refs', recommends using list_tags to find valid ref names, and ties parameters to the repository context (public GitHub repo). This extra context raises it above the baseline of 3.

  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 states the verb 'Generate', the resource 'categorized Markdown changelog', and the context 'between two refs in a public GitHub repository'. Differentiates from sibling 'list_tags' by positioning itself as the main tool and recommending list_tags for discovering valid ref names.

  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 when to use this tool ('main tool') and when to use a sibling ('use list_tags first if you don't know valid ref names'). Provides clear prerequisite guidance, which helps the agent decide the correct sequence.

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