Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• validate_asyncapi_specB
  3.3/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It mentions returning errors for invalid specs but does not clarify behavior for valid specs (e.g., empty list vs success message). No mention of permissions, side effects, or performance.

  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, direct and complete. 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?

  For a simple validation tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose and input. However, it lacks explicit mention of the return format (e.g., list of errors) which would improve completeness.

  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% (single parameter 'spec' described as 'Raw AsyncAPI document content as YAML or JSON.'). Description adds no extra parameter info beyond the schema, so baseline 3 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?

  Description clearly states verb 'validate', resource 'AsyncAPI YAML or JSON content', and outcome 'return validation errors'. Clearly distinguishes from sibling tools that handle metadata, sections, versions, and 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?

  No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_asyncapi_spec_metadata or search_asyncapi_spec. The description does not specify prerequisites or contexts where validation is appropriate.

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

• get_asyncapi_spec_sectionA
  3.5/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It does not specify return format (e.g., markdown text), error handling for missing headings, or whether it is read-only. The behavioral details are insufficient.

  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?

  One sentence with no fluff. The description front-loads the key action and resource, making it efficient and clear.

  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 simplicity (2 params, no output schema), the description covers the core purpose. However, it lacks details on return format and error behavior, which are needed for full completeness without annotations.

  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 baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra context (e.g., 'latest from master') but mainly restates schema info. No significant value added 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 verb 'Return', the resource 'one section from the latest AsyncAPI markdown specification', and the mechanism 'by heading text or slug'. It distinctively differentiates from sibling tools like get_asyncapi_spec_metadata or search_asyncapi_spec.

  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?

  No explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives. The description implies use when a specific section is needed by heading, but lacks exclusion criteria or comparisons with other tools.

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

• search_asyncapi_specA
  3.6/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description partially discloses behavior: it searches the latest spec and returns snippets. However, it does not mention behavior on empty queries, error handling, or the snippet format needed for proper use.

  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 concise sentence that front-loads the key action and resource. Every word is necessary and there is no superfluous content.

  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?

  Given the tool has 3 parameters and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain return value format, pagination, or behavior when no results are found, leaving gaps for a complete understanding.

  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 the description adds little beyond what the schema already provides. The word 'latest' hints at version default, but the schema already describes version semantics adequately.

  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 'Search', the resource 'AsyncAPI markdown specification', and the output 'matching snippets'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_asyncapi_spec_section or list_asyncapi_spec_versions, which have different purposes.

  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 searching the spec, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or special conditions. No when-not or alternative hints are given.

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

• list_asyncapi_spec_versionsA
  3.7/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states it lists stable versions from GitHub tags, lacking details on data freshness, rate limits, pagination, or whether it's read-only. Minimal behavioral disclosure.

  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, concise sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and efficient.

  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 list tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it does not describe the output format (list of strings, objects, etc.) or any potential side effects, leaving gaps in 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?

  There are no parameters, so schema coverage is 100% trivially. The description adds no parameter-level detail, but given zero parameters, the baseline of 4 is justified.

  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 the verb 'list' and specifies the resource 'stable AsyncAPI specification versions available as GitHub tags'. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools which focus on metadata, sections, search, or validation.

  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 its use to retrieve version lists but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives or any exclusions. Given the simple nature, a score of 3 (implied usage) is appropriate.

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

• get_asyncapi_spec_metadataA
  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. Describes what is returned but does not disclose side effects, authentication needs, or error behavior (e.g., if version not found). Adequate but minimal.

  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 of 12 words, front-loaded with key information. No fluff or 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?

  For a simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is largely complete. Could specify the output format, but the complexity is low and the listed metadata fields are 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?

  Single parameter 'version' is fully described in schema with example and default behavior (100% coverage). Tool description adds no extra meaning, so baseline score 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?

  Description clearly states it returns metadata (source, version, cache, size) for the latest AsyncAPI spec, distinguishing it from siblings like get_asyncapi_spec_section (returns a section) and list_asyncapi_spec_versions (lists versions).

  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?

  Implied usage: when metadata about the spec is needed. The optional version parameter is noted, but no explicit contrast with alternatives like search or validate is provided. Clear enough given sibling names.

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