Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• describe_tableB
  3.3/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, and the description offers no additional behavioral context beyond the basic operation. There is no mention of how the tool handles errors, permissions, or whether it might have side effects. For a tool with no annotations, this is insufficient.

  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 a single sentence with no fluff, but it could be slightly more informative without being verbose. It earns a 4 for being concise and front-loaded.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness2/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the lack of output schema and annotations, the description does not provide enough context about the return format, edge cases, or prerequisites. The tool has three parameters but the description is minimal.

  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 baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what is already in the input schema; for instance, 'project_root' is not explained further.

  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 'Get column schema for a table' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_tables (which lists table names) and run_query (which executes SQL queries).

  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 usage guidance or alternatives are mentioned; however, the context of sibling tools implies this tool is used after listing tables to inspect their schema. This is implied rather than stated.

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

• list_tablesA
  3.5/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It correctly implies a read operation but lacks details on authentication, rate limits, or output behavior. Acceptable but minimal.

  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?

  A single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. Front-loaded and clear.

  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?

  The tool is simple but the description does not mention the return format (e.g., list of table names). With no output schema, this information would be helpful.

  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%. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions, so 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 verb 'list' and resource 'tables in a database connection', distinguishing it from sibling tools like describe_table and run_query.

  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 (e.g., describe_table). The description does not provide context or exclusions.

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

• run_queryA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the read-only nature and rejection of writes, but lacks details on error handling, rate limits, or side effects beyond the core behavior.

  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?

  A single, direct sentence with no extraneous information. Every word is purposeful and front-loaded with the most critical detail.

  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?

  The description is adequate for a simple read-only query tool, but lacks details about return format, pagination, or limitations (e.g., query timeout). Without an output schema, the agent may need more context about results.

  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 description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. The description does not elaborate on parameter usage or constraints beyond what the schema already provides.

  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 runs read-only SQL queries (SELECT, EXPLAIN, SHOW, PRAGMA) and explicitly rejects write statements, making the purpose unambiguous and distinguishing it from the sibling 'run_write'.

  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 allowed query types and that write statements are rejected, providing clear context for when to use. However, it does not explicitly state alternatives or when not to use, though the sibling 'run_write' implies the contrast.

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

• add_connectionA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It explains the configuration action and suggests a verification step, but lacks details on side effects, idempotency, or error handling.

  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 paragraph of four sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, includes examples and a post-usage suggestion, and has no redundant words.

  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 10 parameters with full schema coverage, no required fields, and no output schema, the description adequately covers how to use the tool and what to expect, but lacks details on success/failure behavior or error handling.

  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% with basic descriptions; the description adds significant value by explaining the three connection modes with concrete URL examples and clarifying optionality among parameter groups.

  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 'Configure a database connection for this session' with a specific verb and resource, and clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like list_connections and run_query.

  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 enumerates three mutually exclusive modes (url, file, individual params) and recommends calling list_connections to verify, providing clear usage context without explicit alternatives 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.

• list_connectionsA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Since no annotations are provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that it lists connections and returns setup instructions if none exist, implying a read-only operation. However, it does not explicitly state the absence of side effects, which would be beneficial.

  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 concise with two purposeful sentences plus a highlighted important note. It is front-loaded with the main action and provides critical usage guidance efficiently.

  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 lack of output schema, the description adequately conveys what the tool returns (a list or setup instructions). It is complete enough for a simple listing tool, though it could optionally mention the format of the returned list.

  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 100% schema coverage, the description adds value by explaining why the project_root parameter is important (shared server context) beyond the schema's description. It reinforces the correct usage without redundancy.

  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 'lists all configured database connections' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes well from siblings that perform different operations like adding connections or querying tables.

  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?

  Includes an important note about always providing the project_root parameter with an absolute path, explaining why it's needed for multi-project server sharing. It also mentions what happens if no connections are found, but lacks explicit exclusions or 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.

• run_writeA
  4.6/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Discloses the two-step confirmation requirement for destructive operations, which is critical. However, does not describe the format of the risk summary return or any error/authentication behavior. With no annotations, more could be said, but the main safety feature is well communicated.

  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, both essential. First sentence states purpose, second provides critical usage instruction. No wasted words.

  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 purpose, confirmation flow, and sibling relationship. Could be improved by explicitly stating what happens when confirm is false (returns risk summary) and any preconditions (e.g., user authentication). But overall sufficient for an agent to use correctly.

  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 description adds meaningful context: explains confirm parameter's usage pattern and notes connectionId comes from list_connections. This goes beyond the schema's descriptions.

  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 it runs write SQL statements (INSERT, UPDATE, DELETE, TRUNCATE, DROP, ALTER), clearly distinguishing from the read-only sibling run_query.

  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 step-by-step guidance: for destructive operations, first call without confirm to get a risk summary, then call with confirm: true only after user approval. Also warns against passing confirm: true on first call.

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