Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• run_realtime_reportA
  3.6/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations provided, so description carries burden. It indicates a read operation but omits behavior like pagination, rate limits, or empty results. Limit parameter exists but not explained.

  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?

  Description is concise with two clear sections: summary and parameter list. Every sentence adds value, though the lack of limit description is a minor omission.

  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?

  Output schema exists so return values are covered. However, with 4 parameters and no annotations, the description misses the limit parameter and lacks guidance on choosing between this and run_report.

  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 0%, so description adds value for property_id, dimensions, and metrics with examples and defaults. However, the limit parameter is entirely undocumented, leaving a gap.

  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 it runs a GA4 realtime report for active users in the last 30 minutes, distinguishing it from non-realtime report sibling tools like run_report.

  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 context is implied (realtime data), but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use vs alternatives like run_report. No exclusions or prerequisites mentioned.

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

• get_propertyA
  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 must convey behavioral traits. It discloses the env var fallback but does not mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether it is read-only (though 'Get metadata' implies read). With no annotations, this is moderately informative but lacks depth.

  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 concise sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence front-loads the purpose, and the second details the parameter. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

  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 presence of an output schema, the description does not need to detail return values. It covers the parameter semantics and fallback behavior. For a simple one-parameter tool, this is complete enough, though it could mention potential error cases.

  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 schema has 0% description coverage for the parameter, but the description adds significant meaning: it specifies the expected format (numeric GA4 ID), gives an example, and explains the fallback to an environment variable. This compensates well for the schema gap.

  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 it retrieves metadata for a single GA4 property, listing specific fields (display name, time zone, currency). This is distinct from sibling tools like list_properties (lists properties) and run_report (runs reports).

  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 explains the property_id parameter and its fallback to an environment variable. It implicitly indicates when to use this tool (to get a single property's metadata) versus siblings, but does not explicitly state when not to use it.

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

• run_reportA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the core behavior: running a report with given parameters, default limit, sorting, and date formats. It does not cover error handling, rate limits, or permission requirements, but it is otherwise transparent about functionality.

  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 well-structured with separate sections for each parameter in a bullet-like format. It is concise yet informative, front-loaded with the purpose, and every sentence adds value. No unnecessary repetition.

  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 8 parameters, no schema descriptions, and no annotations, the description covers parameter semantics thoroughly. It also references a sibling tool for finding property ID. However, it lacks information about potential errors, permissions, or output structure (though output schema exists). For a data-fetching tool, this is close to complete but missing some operational context.

  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 description coverage is 0%, but the description thoroughly explains each parameter with examples and defaults. It adds significant value beyond the schema by providing GA4 dimension/metric API names, date formats, and sorting behavior. This fully compensates for the lack of schema 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?

  The description clearly states the tool runs a GA4 report with arbitrary dimensions and metrics. It distinguishes itself from siblings like list_properties and run_realtime_report by emphasizing flexibility in dimensions/metrics and by referencing list_properties to find the property ID.

  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 detailed guidance on each parameter with examples and defaults, including how to find property_id via list_properties. However, it does not explicitly compare with run_realtime_report or state when to use one over the other. The context signals mention sibling tools, but the description itself lacks that contrast.

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

• list_propertiesA
  4.7/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description covers the read-only nature and scope ('every' account/property the user can read). It lacks details about potential emptiness or rate limits, but for a simple list tool it's sufficient.

  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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, no wasted words.

  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 a read-only list tool with no parameters and an output schema, the description fully covers what an agent needs: purpose, usage order, and output relevance.

  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, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter details, but baseline for 0 parameters is 4 as it doesn't need to compensate.

  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 the resource 'GA4 account and property', and distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_property' (specific) by listing all.

  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?

  Explicitly advises 'Use this first to discover property IDs' and explains the returned fields are needed by every other tool, providing clear when-to-use guidance.

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