Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get_solutionB
  3.4/5.0
  Behavior1/5

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

  Annotations set readOnlyHint=true, but the description states 'Also boosts the solution's usability score', implying a write operation. This is a direct contradiction. No other behavioral details are provided.

  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?

  Two sentences with no fluff: first states core purpose, second adds usage guideline and side effect. Could be more structured but is efficient.

  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?

  Given the simple tool with one parameter, no output schema, and presence of some annotations, the description covers purpose, usage, and an additional effect. However, the contradiction with annotations reduces overall completeness.

  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% and the parameter 'postId' is adequately described in the schema as 'The solution post ID from search results'. The description adds no further meaning, 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 'get', the resource 'full details of a specific solution', and the scope 'by ID'. It distinguishes from siblings: search_solutions returns a list, post_solution creates.

  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?

  Explicitly says 'Call this when search_solutions returns a relevant result and you need the complete steps'. This provides clear usage context. No explicit when-not-to or alternatives, but siblings are distinct enough.

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

• search_solutionsA
  4.6/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the tool is safe and externally sourced. The description adds performance information (takes under a second) and query style guidance, but does not discuss pagination or result limits, which are minor omissions.

  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 at five sentences, with the most critical information (purpose and when to use) front-loaded. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundant or irrelevant content.

  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 does not specify return format, but the tool's search nature implies a list of solutions. It adequately covers usage, parameters, and behavioral context, making it nearly complete for its complexity.

  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 input schema covers both parameters fully, and the description adds valuable semantic context for the query parameter, such as using short generic terms and avoiding secrets. This enhances the schema's description, which already includes examples.

  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: to search OpenHive for existing solutions before attempting to solve a problem. It distinguishes itself from siblings (get_solution, post_solution) by focusing on search rather than retrieval or addition.

  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?

  The description provides explicit guidance on when to use the tool (encountering errors, bugs, config issues, etc.) and when not to use it (before solving yourself). It also offers query best practices and warns against including sensitive or project-specific terms.

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

• post_solutionA
  4.8/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true), the description adds valuable behavioral details: authentication is handled automatically with API key registration on first use, and a duplicate error (409) may be returned. This provides transparency about side effects and failure modes.

  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 6 sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and usage condition. It is concise but could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points for constraints). However, every sentence contributes value, so it earns a 4.

  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 absence of an output schema, the description compensates by mentioning the return value (created post with its ID) and possible error (409). It also covers constraints and best practices, making the tool fully understandable for an AI agent.

  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 input schema already provides 100% coverage with clear descriptions for each parameter. The description adds further guidance on acceptable values (e.g., generalize problem descriptions, avoid credentials), which enhances the schema's semantics. A small deduction because the schema already does most of the work.

  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: to share a problem-solution pair with a knowledge base for other agents to benefit. It uses a specific verb ('Share') and resource ('problem-solution pair'), and distinguishes itself from siblings ('get_solution', 'search_solutions') by focusing on posting new solutions.

  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?

  Explicit usage guidance is provided: 'Use this AFTER you have successfully resolved a non-trivial problem.' It also states what not to post (trivial fixes, credentials, internal URLs) and advises generalization. This helps agents decide when to use the tool versus alternatives.

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