Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get_projectA
  3.7/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  The description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations already provide (read-only, open-world, idempotent, non-destructive). It does not mention auth, error behavior, or response characteristics, so it fails to add value over the rich annotation set.

  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, well-structured sentence that conveys the exact purpose without any fluff. It earns its place and is immediately scannable.

  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?

  The tool is extremely simple with one parameter and a rich output schema plus strong annotations. The description, while terse, is sufficient for an agent to understand the operation given the structured context; no additional details are necessary.

  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 'idOrName' already documented as 'Project ID or project name'. The tool description adds no additional semantic meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.

  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 fetches one project by ID or name, which is a specific verb+resource scope. It implicitly distinguishes from the sibling list_projects by emphasizing 'one project'.

  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 when you know the project ID/name, but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or how it compares to list_projects. No alternative tools are named, so guidance is only implicit and minimal.

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

• list_projectsA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  The description adds the scope note 'visible to the configured account or team', which is useful context beyond the annotations. However, the annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to restate safety. It does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as pagination, sorting, or rate limits.

  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, clear sentence that front-loads the core action and resource, then briefly mentions the two optional parameters. There is no redundancy or filler; every word adds 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?

  For a simple listing tool, the description is adequately complete when combined with the rich schema (100% parameter coverage) and the output schema. The only minor gap is that it does not hint that get_project can be used for detailed single-project information, but that is not essential for using this tool correctly.

  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 schema already provides full descriptions for both parameters (limit: 'Max results (default 20)', search: 'Filter projects by name') with 100% coverage. The description only paraphrases these as 'Optional text search and result limit', adding no new meaning 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 action ('List') and the resource ('projects') with a scope qualifier ('visible to the configured account or team'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_project (single project) and list_deployments (a different resource).

  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 the tool is for listing projects and mentions optional search and limit, but it does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives or provide exclusions. The sibling tool set (get_project, list_deployments) suggests different purposes, but the description itself does not guide selection.

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

• get_deploymentA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds minimal behavioral context ('including its current state'), but this does not go beyond what the output schema likely provides, so the added transparency value is modest.

  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, well-structured sentence that leads with the action verb, states the resource and identification method, and adds the key detail about current state. Every word earns its place.

  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?

  This is a simple read-only fetch with a single parameter, an output schema, and comprehensive annotations. The description adequately covers what the tool does, how to identify the deployment, and what is returned (current state), and the output schema handles return values, so nothing critical is missing.

  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 the parameter 'idOrUrl' fully documented as 'Deployment ID (dpl_…) or deployment URL'. The description repeats this idea ('by ID or URL') without adding new semantic detail, so it does not exceed the baseline provided by 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 uses the specific verb 'Fetch' and clearly identifies the resource as a deployment, also specifying the lookup method (by ID or URL) and that it includes current state. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_deployments and get_project.

  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 this is for fetching a single known deployment, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over list_deployments or exclude alternatives. The usage guidance is present only implicitly, not explicitly.

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

• list_deploymentsA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds minor context like 'recent' (implying ordering) but does not disclose pagination, rate limits, or other behavioral traits 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?

  Single concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose and lists optional filters without unnecessary detail.

  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 simple read-only list tool with a full output schema, complete parameter descriptions, and comprehensive annotations, the description is sufficient. The minor ambiguity of 'recent' is not critical to understanding the tool's function.

  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 covers all three parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the schema carries the burden. The description adds example state values (BUILDING, ERROR, READY) that complement the schema's example, but this is minimal added value.

  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 action (list) and resource (deployments), and the optional filters (project ID, state) are specified. It naturally distinguishes from siblings like get_deployment and list_projects.

  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?

  Usage is implied by the tool's name and description, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions. The sibling names hint at distinctions, but the description does not state them.

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