Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• inspect_blueprintA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only operation ('before importing') but does not explicitly state that it avoids modifications, nor does it describe return format or validation behavior. This is adequate but not rich.

  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 purpose and lists key elements. Every word earns its place with 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?

  This is a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema. The description covers the tool's purpose and scope adequately. It does not describe the return structure, but 'overview' implies a summary, making it sufficiently complete for its complexity.

  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 lone parameter 'path' is already well-described in the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

  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 a clear, specific purpose: providing an overview of a Make.com scenario blueprint before importing. It enumerates the aspects covered (modules, apps used, trigger, routers, error handlers, scenario settings), which differentiates it from the sibling tools trace_module and audit_blueprint.

  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 phrase 'before importing it' gives clear contextual timing for when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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

• trace_moduleA
  4/5.0
  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. It discloses a key behavior: credential-shaped values are masked, which is useful for the agent to know about output handling. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or non-destructive, which is relevant given it takes a blueprint path and id.

  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 core purpose and then enumerates the key details. Every phrase adds value, and there is no redundancy or fluff.

  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?

  With no output schema, the description compensates by clearly listing the return contents: type, parameters, mappings, and both incoming and outgoing references. It also provides the crucial context that the id comes from sibling tools. The only minor gap is the lack of explicit mention of error cases or file-read behavior, but the overall purpose is well-covered.

  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 for both parameters is 100%: id and path have clear descriptions in the schema itself. The tool description adds no additional parameter context, so the baseline score of 3 applies per the rubric.

  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 title explicitly says 'Trace a module' and the description details exactly what it provides: type, parameters, mappings, and dependency references. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like inspect_blueprint and audit_blueprint, which operate on the whole blueprint or audit findings respectively.

  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 implies a prerequisite: the module id is obtained from inspect_blueprint or audit findings, as noted in the id parameter description. This gives clear context for when to use the tool, but it stops short of explicitly stating when not to use it or directly naming alternatives.

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

• audit_blueprintA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds significant value by stating that 'Secrets are masked in the output' and enumerating the checks performed. It does not explicitly state whether the tool modifies the blueprint, but 'Risk report before importing' implies non-destructive analysis.

  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 front-loads the core purpose ('Risk report before importing') followed by a concise colon-separated list of risk categories. No wasted words, and all content 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?

  Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no annotations), the description covers the purpose, usage timing, specific checks, and output masking. It does not detail the exact report format or return values, but for a single-parameter tool, this is reasonably complete.

  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 input schema has 100% coverage for the single 'path' parameter, fully describing it as a path to a Make.com scenario blueprint. The description does not add further parameter details, but since the schema is complete, the baseline score of 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 tool performs a 'Risk report before importing', identifying specific risk categories (hardcoded credential-shaped values, dangling module references, plain-http URLs, etc.). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like inspect_blueprint or trace_module by focusing on security/risk auditing rather than general inspection or tracing.

  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 explicitly says 'before importing', providing clear context for when to use the tool. However, it does not mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it stops short of exhaustive comparative guidance.

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