Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• oura_api_getA
  3.6/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, so the description's mention of pagination adds some value. It doesn't disclose error handling or rate limits, but with annotations, the behavioral disclosure is moderate.

  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, no wasted words, front-loaded purpose. Highly concise and well-structured.

  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 output schema and annotations, the description adequately covers the tool's role, including pagination and endpoint discovery. It is complete enough for a generic GET tool, though it could mention auth prerequisites briefly.

  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 descriptions for all parameters. The description reinforces pagination via max_pages or next_token, which is already in schema, adding minimal new semantic meaning.

  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?

  The description clearly states it's a generic GET to Oura Ring API v2, and references oura_api_list_paths for endpoint discovery, distinguishing it from auth tools. However, it doesn't fully specify which data it retrieves beyond being generic.

  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?

  It mentions using oura_api_list_paths to see endpoints and pagination options, but lacks explicit when-to-use vs alternatives or exclusions. The usage context is implied but not fully articulated.

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

• oura_auth_statusA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description adds value by specifying exactly what is checked (state and token expiry), providing context beyond the 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?

  Extremely concise single sentence with no wasted words. Front-loaded with the core functionality.

  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?

  While the tool is simple with no parameters, the description does not specify the output format or data structure. For complete understanding, an agent might need to know what the response contains (e.g., boolean, object). Adequate but could be more detailed.

  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 exist; schema coverage is 100%. Baseline score of 4 is appropriate as description need not explain parameters.

  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 checks authentication state and token expiry, using specific verb 'Check' and distinct resource. It is easily distinguishable from sibling tools like oura_authenticate or oura_clear_auth.

  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 such as oura_authenticate or oura_api_get. The description implies use for checking auth state but offers no exclusions or context.

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

• oura_authenticateA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the description correctly implies mutation via OAuth flow. It adds that a URL is returned, but does not disclose potential side effects like token invalidation. The description adds moderate context beyond 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?

  The description consists of two concise, front-loaded sentences with no redundant information. Every sentence earns its place, clearly stating purpose and return 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 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and return value. It could elaborate on the overall OAuth flow (e.g., requiring a callback), but the current content is sufficient for an agent to use the tool.

  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 input schema has zero parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter info, and it appropriately omits any.

  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 explicitly states the tool starts an OAuth authorization flow and returns a URL. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like oura_auth_status and oura_clear_auth by focusing on authentication initiation.

  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 specifies the tool is 'Used for re-authentication after refresh_token expires', providing clear context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like oura_auth_status for checking existing auth.

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

• oura_api_list_pathsA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, fully covering safety and idempotency. Description adds 'with summaries' but no further behavioral traits. No contradiction.

  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, front-loaded with key information, no redundant words. Efficient and clear.

  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?

  Adequately describes a parameterless tool with no output schema; explains purpose and output format ('summaries'). Slightly vague on summary content, but sufficient for the tool's simplicity.

  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?

  Zero parameters with 100% schema coverage (empty object). Baseline is 4 as per guidelines; description does not need to add parameter info.

  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 explicitly states 'List all available Oura API v2 GET endpoints with summaries', specifying verb, resource, and scope. Clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like oura_api_get (which retrieves specific endpoint data) and authentication tools.

  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?

  Clear context: use to discover available endpoints. No explicit when-not or alternatives listed, but tool purpose is self-explanatory and siblings are distinct, making guidance implicit.

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

• oura_clear_authA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations indicate destructiveHint: true and idempotentHint: true. The description adds context by noting that re-authentication is needed afterward, complementing the annotations. No contradiction.

  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 extremely concise with two sentences, each earning its place. It is front-loaded with the action and ends with a clear next step.

  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 parameters, no output schema, and annotations covering destruction, the description is adequate. It could optionally mention implications for state or irreversible nature, but current information is sufficient.

  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 no parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%. Per guidelines, baseline is 4. No further parameter description 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?

  The description explicitly states 'Delete stored tokens', clearly indicating the action and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like oura_authenticate and oura_auth_status by focusing on clearing authentication.

  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 a clear usage guideline: 'Re-authenticate via `oura_authenticate` after this.' It implies when to use (to reset auth) and suggests an alternative tool, but does not explicitly state when not to use.

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