Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• conf_deleteA
  3.6/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Annotations absent, so description carries full burden. It describes the action, output format (TOON), and typical response (204), but omits authorization, error handling, and irreversible nature beyond 'Delete'.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness4/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  Well-structured with clear sections and bullet points. Front-loaded with core action. The list of endpoints is slightly lengthy but overall concise.

  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?

  Lacks output schema, so description should explain return values. Mentions TOON format and 204 response but not error handling or response structure. Missing guidance on authentication and pagination.

  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 parameters are already documented. Description adds concrete endpoint examples for the 'path' parameter but does not significantly enhance understanding of other parameters beyond 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?

  Clearly states it deletes Confluence resources via DELETE HTTP method, with specific endpoint examples, differentiating from siblings (get, patch, post, put).

  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 this tool vs alternatives. Usage is implied by the action 'Delete' but not clarified with respect to other methods.

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

• conf_patchA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It discloses default output format (TOON) and cost optimization via 'jq' parameter. However, it does not discuss error handling, idempotency, authentication requirements, or side effects beyond the PATCH verb.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness4/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is well-structured with sections and bolded notes, making key information scannable. It is somewhat verbose with examples, but each part earns its place by providing actionable guidance. Could be slightly trimmed without loss.

  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 output schema, the description explains the return format (TOON or JSON) and common endpoint patterns. It covers the main use case (partial updates) and provides API reference URL. Missing details on response structure beyond format, but overall complete for a patch 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?

  All 5 parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds value by providing concrete examples for 'path' and 'body', common operations, and cost optimization context for 'jq' and 'outputFormat'. This goes beyond the schema fields.

  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 'Partially update Confluence resources' and provides specific examples for updating a space and comment. The name 'conf_patch' and sibling tools ('conf_delete', 'conf_get', 'conf_post', 'conf_put') clearly differentiate it as the partial update operation.

  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 mentions that Confluence v2 API primarily uses PUT for updates, which hints at when to use PATCH vs PUT, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives. No guidance on when not to use or prerequisites beyond this subtle note.

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

• conf_postA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations; description covers output format and cost implications but lacks details on authentication requirements, potential side effects, or behavior for existing resources.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness4/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  Well-structured with sections and front-loaded important info, but slightly verbose with repeated examples.

  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?

  Covers usage, cost optimization, output format, and common operations; missing auth and error handling, but references external documentation.

  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?

  Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions. The description adds significant value with endpoint examples, body structures, and jq usage guidance 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 tool creates Confluence resources, with specific examples like creating pages, blog posts, labels, and comments. This distinguishes it from sibling tools (get, delete, patch, put).

  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 cost optimization tips and common operation examples, but does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or compare with siblings beyond implied HTTP methods.

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

• conf_putA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Despite no annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: full replacement, version increment requirement, default TOON output, and jq cost optimization. It adequately informs about operational effects.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness4/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  Well-structured with sections, bold headings, and bullet points. Front-loaded with purpose, then organized by cost, output, and examples. Some redundancy (version increment mentioned twice), but overall efficient.

  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?

  Covers main aspects for a PUT tool: purpose, parameters, common operations, output format, and token optimization. Lacks error handling or status codes, but sufficient given schema 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?

  Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds value through examples (e.g., page update body) and explanations of jq and outputFormat, enriching understanding 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 states 'Replace Confluence resources (full update)' with specific examples for pages and blog posts, clearly distinguishing it from partial update (patch) siblings.

  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 implies usage for full replacements via 'full update' and 'PUT replaces entire resource', but lacks explicit comparison to conf_patch or 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.

• conf_getA
  4.8/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It fully discloses behavior: returns TOON format by default (30-60% fewer tokens), explains cost implications, and provides a schema discovery pattern. However, it does not mention error handling, authentication requirements, or rate limiting. Could be slightly more transparent on edge cases but sufficient for a read 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?

  Well-structured with clear sections (IMPORTANT - Cost Optimization, Schema Discovery Pattern, Output format, Common paths, JQ examples). Front-loaded with core purpose and crucial cost advice. Every sentence adds value; no fluff. Appropriately detailed for a complex tool without being verbose.

  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?

  Comprehensive given no output schema: explains output format, how to control it, provides common paths, discovery pattern, and jq examples. With 4 parameters and no output schema, the description fully equips an agent to use the tool effectively, including cost optimization. Sibling tools are all write, reinforcing the read-only nature.

  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?

  Schema coverage is 100% but description adds significant value beyond schema: explains `jq` with cost-saving context, contrasts `outputFormat` options, gives concrete examples for `path` and `queryParams`. Each parameter is well-contextualized in the tool's usage, making it easier for the agent to choose correct values.

  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?

  Starts with 'Read any Confluence data', clearly describing the tool as a read-only GET request. Differentiates from sibling tools (conf_delete, conf_patch, conf_post, conf_put) which are all write operations. Also specifies output format (TOON by default) and token efficiency.

  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 extensive usage guidelines: strongly recommends using `jq` and `limit` to reduce costs, outlines a discovery pattern for exploring schemas, lists common paths with examples, and gives jq examples. Explicitly advises on when to use this tool for reading and implies not for writing by nature of being a GET tool.

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