Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• note_update_draftA
  4.1/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations available, the description carries the burden and discloses two meaningful traits: the operation is an overwrite (上書き保存), and it preserves publication status. This gives the agent a clear safety-relevant behavioral picture, though it does not cover side effects on omitted optional tags or the response shape.

  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 short sentences with no filler: the first names the operation and target, the second states the crucial invariant. The most important information is front-loaded.

  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 write operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose and the publication-status invariant, but leaves ambiguity about optional tag handling and does not indicate what the tool returns. These gaps are modest because the schema is fully described and the use case is simple.

  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 input schema already documents id, title, body, and tags. The description reinforces that title and body are overwritten, but adds no new detail about how the optional tags parameter behaves when omitted.

  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 specifies the exact verb and resource: overwrite-saving the title/body of an existing draft identified by ID, and adds a key boundary ('公開状態は変更しない'). This clearly distinguishes it from note_create_draft, note_get_draft, and note_publish_draft.

  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?

  It clearly frames the tool as working on an existing draft (既存の下書き) and explicitly states it will not change publication status, which tells the agent when this tool is appropriate and when to look elsewhere. However, it does not name the alternative sibling tools explicitly, so the routing guidance is implied rather than fully explicit.

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

• note_get_draftA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly implies a read-only operation via '取得する' and explicitly discloses that the tool is experimental and may fail because the API spec is unconfirmed. It could add more detail about return values or error behavior, but the key behavioral caveat is present.

  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, compact sentence that front-loads the main action and then adds a relevant experimental warning. Every phrase earns its place, with no redundant filler.

  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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description states the purpose, the target resource, and the risk of failure. It does not describe the exact return shape, but for a debug-oriented retrieval tool the essential operational context is provided.

  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?

  The input schema covers the only parameter 'id' at 100% with a description 'note ID'. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, but none is strictly needed for a single, well-specified parameter. 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?

  The description uses a specific verb and resource: '取得する' (retrieve) the current content of a draft. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tools note_create_draft, note_update_draft, and note_publish_draft, which are all mutations.

  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 context: it is intended for operation checks and debugging, and it explicitly warns that retrieval may fail due to unconfirmed note.com API specifications. It does not name alternatives or explicitly state when not to use it, but the context is sufficient.

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

• note_publish_draftA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It explicitly warns that the action is irreversible and publicly exposes the article, states that it is experimental and unverified on note.com's API, and explains that execution requires confirm:true. This is strong transparency for a destructive operation.

  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 compact and every sentence earns its place: the operation, the irreversible/public consequence, the experimental status, and the required confirmation flag. Warnings are front-loaded, making the risk profile immediately visible.

  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?

  For a low-complexity, two-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is sufficiently complete. It tells the agent what the tool does, why it is risky, that it is not guaranteed to work, and what condition must be met before it will execute.

  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?

  The input schema already covers both parameters, including a description for id and the confirm parameter's role. The description restates the confirmation condition but does not add meaningful parameter-level details beyond what the schema provides, so it stays at the baseline for full schema coverage.

  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 states the exact operation ('下書き記事を公開する') and clarifies the real-world effect ('記事が誰でも閲覧可能な状態になる'). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling draft-management tools, which cover create, update, and get, not publishing.

  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 when to use the tool: when you intend to publish a draft and accept its public/irreversible consequences. However, it does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives like note_update_draft or note_get_draft, nor does it state 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.

• note_create_draftA
  4.6/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full disclosure burden and delivers thoroughly: it details the draft-only behavior, the one-line-per-paragraph body format, supported Markdown syntax, and the experimental tag feature with its failure caveat. This is exemplary 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 a compact two-sentence block that front-loads the core action and includes only useful behavioral details. There is no filler or redundant repetition of schema fields.

  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 3-parameter create operation with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential invocation context: purpose, non-publication, body formatting, and tag uncertainty. The only notable omission is any mention of the return value or subsequent handling of the created draft, but this is minor for 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?

  Schema description coverage is 100%, but the description adds meaningful detail beyond the schema: exact Markdown examples and the paragraph-per-line rule for body, plus the caveat that tags may fail. This elevates the value beyond the baseline 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?

  The description opens with a specific verb and resource ('create a new draft article on note.com') and clarifies it is saved as a non-published draft. This immediately distinguishes the tool from sibling tools like note_publish_draft and note_update_draft.

  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 clearly signals this tool is for new drafts and explicitly states it does not publish ('公開はされない'), which contextually routes away from publish/update siblings. However, it does not name the sibling alternatives or state exactly when to use them, so explicit when-not guidance is missing.

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