Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• browseB
  3.3/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds no behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide (e.g., does not mention pagination, result truncation, or dynamic nature). It merely restates filtering capabilities that are already in the schema.

  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 sentence of 10 words, front-loading the key action and scope. Every word is essential; no redundancy or filler.

  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 browse tool with 4 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose and filtering. However, it lacks guidance on output format or pagination behavior, and does not help distinguish from siblings in usage context. The annotations compensate partially for behavioral transparency.

  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%, with each parameter already documented in the input schema. The description's phrase 'by category or popularity' maps to the category and sort parameters but adds no new meaning or constraints beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

  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 'Browse skills, plugins, and MCP servers by category or popularity' clearly specifies the verb (browse), the resources (skills, plugins, MCP servers), and the filtering methods (category, popularity). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'search' (likely keyword-based) and 'sources' (likely listing data sources). It follows a 'specific verb+resource' structure.

  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?

  The description does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (search, sources). It lacks 'when not to use' or explicit context for selection. While siblings are named, no comparative guidance is given.

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

• searchA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, establishing safe read and idempotent behavior. The description adds the crucial behavioral detail that the tool 'returns install commands', which is not covered by annotations or schema. This adds value beyond the structured fields.

  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: the first clearly states the action and resources, and the second states the output. Every word earns its place; no redundancy or fluff.

  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 tool has 4 parameters (including an enum and a semantic option) and no output schema, the description is somewhat sparse. It does not explain behavior differences across type filters, the semantic search requirement, or the return format beyond 'install commands'. The schema provides parameter details, but the description lacks high-level completeness for a search tool of this complexity.

  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 schema already documents all parameters. The description does not add meaning beyond what is already in the schema; it summarizes the purpose but not parameter-level details. 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 clearly states the tool searches for Claude Code skills, plugins, and MCP servers, and returns install commands. It specifies the verb 'search' and identifies the resource (skills, plugins, MCP servers), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'browse' and 'sources' which likely 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 installable resources but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings or when not to use it. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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

• sourcesA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds 'status' context but does not delve into behavioral details beyond what annotations provide.

  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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted verbiage, perfectly appropriate for this simple tool.

  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, no output schema, clear annotations), the description fully covers purpose and output without gaps.

  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 zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, the description adds no parameter info, but baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description is adequate.

  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 'Show' and the resource 'available data sources and their status,' effectively distinguishing it from siblings like 'browse' 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 Guidelines4/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description provides clear context for when to use the tool (to view data sources and status) but does not explicitly exclude scenarios or mention alternatives.

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