Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• discovery_list_active_archicadsA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Describes scanning behavior but does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or non-destructive. Lacks details on permissions, network usage, or potential side effects, though implied safe by nature.

  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, 25 words. Front-loaded with purpose; second sentence adds essential context about port usage. No redundant information.

  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?

  Has output schema (not detailed but present), no parameters. Description adequately covers purpose and how output is used. Could mention that the list includes port numbers and possibly other fields, but sufficient for task.

  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 in schema (schema coverage 100%). Baseline is 4 per rules. Description adds no parameter info, but none needed.

  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 tool scans for and lists all running Archicad instances. Identifies the resource ('running Archicad instances') and the action ('scans for and lists'). Differentiates from siblings by focusing on instance discovery rather than calling tools or discovering tool definitions.

  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?

  Implicitly guides usage by stating the listed port is required for other commands, indicating this tool should be used first. Does not explicitly mention when not to use it or provide alternatives, but sibling tool names suggest distinct purposes.

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

• archicad_call_toolA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses critical workflow dependencies, port requirement, and pagination behavior via 'next_page_token'. It does not state load safety or side-effect profile, but the provided behavioral details are meaningful and non-obvious.

  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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then provides critical workflow in a concise, imperative manner. Every sentence adds value, and the length is appropriate for the complexity.

  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 the tool is a generic execution gateway with no output schema and sparse input schema, the description adequately covers the essential workflow: schema retrieval, port requirement, and pagination. It could mention error handling or return format, but the reference to the schema tool handles command-specific details.

  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 coverage is 0%, so the description compensates by explaining that 'name' is the command and that 'arguments' must include 'port' and optionally 'page_token'. It also directs users to 'archicad_get_command_schema' for exact structure, adding significant semantic value over the bare 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 'Executes a specific Archicad API command by its name' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like listing commands, discovery, or getting schemas by focusing on execution.

  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 strong usage context: MUST call 'archicad_get_command_schema' first, includes 'port' from 'discovery_list_active_archicads', and explains pagination handling. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use instructions, but the workflow guidance is clear and actionable.

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

• archicad_get_command_schemaA
  4.7/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the command_name must be exact and obtained from archicad_list_commands, and strongly warns against hallucinating parameters. The read-only nature is implied by 'retrieves', but error behavior (e.g., invalid command_name) is not disclosed. Given the tool's simplicity, this is reasonable transparency.

  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 two sentences, with the purpose first and the critical workflow instruction second. Every sentence is necessary; it is concise, front-loaded, and has no fluff.

  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 one parameter and no schema descriptions, the description covers purpose, parameter source, and usage context. It doesn't detail return formatting, but an output schema exists, so that is not required. Minor gap: it doesn't mention prerequisite like an active Archicad connection, but sibling discovery tools imply that.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters5/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The input schema only provides a title for 'command_name' (0% schema description coverage), but the description compensates fully by specifying that the value must be the exact command name from 'archicad_list_commands'. This adds precise semantic meaning and source for the only parameter, eliminating ambiguity.

  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 it 'Retrieves the exact JSON schema (required arguments) for a specific Archicad command.' This uses a specific verb ('retrieves') and distinct resource (JSON schema for a command), effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like archicad_list_commands (lists commands) and archicad_call_tool (executes commands).

  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?

  Provides explicit usage context: instructs to provide the exact command_name from 'archicad_list_commands' and mandates calling this tool before 'archicad_call_tool' to avoid guessing parameters. This clearly states when and how to use the tool, and implies alternatives by referencing the sibling tools.

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

• archicad_list_commandsA
  4.7/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses that the tool returns a comprehensive list with brief descriptions and clarifies it does not provide exact arguments, directing to the schema tool. It does not mention any connection requirements or output size, but is generally transparent for a simple 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?

  Three concise sentences lead with the primary behavior, then deliver stepwise instructions without redundancy. The STEP 1/STEP 2 formatting makes the flow easy to follow and every sentence adds value.

  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 simplicity (no parameters) and the presence of an output schema, the description fully covers purpose, usage flow, and relation to sibling tools. It leaves no obvious gaps for correct invocation.

  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 the schema is empty, so the baseline is 4. The description adds contextual workflow guidance about how to use the returned command names, which is relevant even without parameter 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 tool 'Returns a comprehensive list of all available Archicad API commands and brief descriptions,' identifying the exact verb, resource, and scope. It also distinguishes this from sibling tools by framing it as the discovery step for finding command 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?

  Explicit step-by-step guidance is provided: 'STEP 1: Use this tool FIRST' and 'STEP 2: ... MUST use the archicad_get_command_schema tool.' It warns against guessing or hallucinating command names and names the specific alternative tool to use next, giving both when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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