Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• auto_paste_statusA
  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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read-only status check ('check current status') but does not explicitly state that it has no side effects or describe the return format. It adds the enabled/disabled detail, but could be more explicit about the operation being non-destructive.

  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, concise sentence that front-loads the key information. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's function, with no unnecessary elaboration.

  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 status check with no parameters and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It specifies what is being checked and the possible states. However, it could be slightly more explicit about the return value format, which is a minor gap.

  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 accepts zero parameters, so the baseline for parameter semantics is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter details, and it correctly implies no inputs are required for the status check.

  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's purpose: checking the current status of auto-paste detection as enabled or disabled. The verb 'check' plus the specific resource 'status of auto-paste detection' distinguishes it from sibling tools that enable, disable, or paste.

  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 clearly implies when to use the tool: when you need to know whether auto-paste is enabled or disabled. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling tools (enable/disable/paste) are conceptually distinct, making the usage context obvious.

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

• disable_auto_pasteA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the immediate effect (disables auto-paste) and the resulting mode (manual via slash commands), but it omits potential side effects, reversibility, or any prerequisites. Since this is a simple toggle, some inference is reasonable, but more explicit detail would improve transparency.

  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 with no fluff. It front-loads the action and immediately explains the result, making every word earn its place. There is no redundancy.

  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 tool's simplicity (zero parameters, no output schema), the description is nearly complete. It states the action and the resulting mode, which is enough for an agent to invoke correctly. It could mention the opposite action (enable_auto_paste) for full completeness, but that is not essential.

  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 zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 per the rubric. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but none is needed; the input schema is empty, and the description focuses on the action and outcome.

  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's function with a specific verb ('Disable') and resource ('automatic paste detection'). It also differentiates from siblings by explicitly mentioning the result ('manual paste mode'), making it distinct from enable_auto_paste and auto_paste_status.

  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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when you want to turn off automatic paste detection. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the sibling tool 'enable_auto_paste' provides clear contrast, and the phrase 'using slash commands only' suggests the resulting behavior is manual, which guides usage.

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

• paste_imageA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It discloses the key behavioral traits: captures clipboard data, saves to a temporary file, and returns the file path. This adds meaningful transparency, though it does not cover edge cases like an empty clipboard or file cleanup.

  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 compact and front-loaded with the primary action. It consists of two sentences that efficiently convey the operation, behavior, and supported formats, with 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?

  The tool is simple with no output schema, but the description explains the return value (file path) and the save-to-file behavior. It lacks details about prerequisites (e.g., clipboard must contain an image) and potential failure modes, which would make it more complete. Still, for a straightforward clipboard utility, it covers sufficient context.

  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?

  Both parameters are fully described in the input schema, so the description does not need to add much. The description mentions support for common image formats, which aligns with the format enum, but adds no additional syntax or format details beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since schema coverage is 100%.

  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's function: pasting an image from the system clipboard, saving it to a temporary file, and returning the file path. It distinguishes paste_image from sibling tools (enable_auto_paste, disable_auto_paste, auto_paste_status) which manage auto-paste settings rather than directly pasting an image.

  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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when an image is in the clipboard and needs to be displayed via Claude Code. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling tools are clearly about toggling auto-paste, so the context is unambiguous. This is a clear usage context without explicit when-not guidance.

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

• enable_auto_pasteA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly describes the trigger (copying image + Ctrl+V) and the effect (auto-triggering pasting). It does not mention side effects, persistence, or scope, but for a simple toggle, this is reasonable. The description adds value beyond the tool name without being misleading.

  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, front-loaded with the core action and followed by a clear explanation of the behavior. Every sentence earns its place, with no fluff or redundancy. It is concise and well-structured.

  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, no annotations), the description is complete. It fully explains what the tool does and its effect. There are no missing pieces that would prevent an agent from using it correctly. The sibling context further clarifies its role.

  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 zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters, and the input schema shows none. The description adds context about the tool's behavior, which compensates for the lack of parameters entirely.

  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's purpose: 'Enable automatic paste detection.' It uses a specific verb (enable) and resource (automatic paste detection), and explains the exact behavior triggered. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'paste_image' (manual) and 'disable_auto_paste' (the inverse).

  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 usage context by explaining what happens when enabled (copying an image and pressing Ctrl+V triggers pasting). It implicitly contrasts with using slash commands ('without needing to type slash commands'), which suggests an alternative workflow. However, it does not explicitly name sibling tools or state when not to use this tool, so it falls short of full explicit guidance.

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