Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• test_connectionA
  4.1/5.0
  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 and does well by disclosing the specific outputs: psql binary path, server version, connected user, and read-only/read-write mode. It also mentions config-file validation when checking all databases. It does not explicitly state that no data is modified, but 'check' and 'reports' strongly imply a non-destructive diagnostic.

  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: the first sentence gives the core action and scope, and the second adds useful behavioral detail. Every sentence contributes information without redundancy.

  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 diagnostic tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description covers the invocation scope, the meaning of omitting the parameter, and the reported fields. An agent has enough information to call it correctly without needing more context.

  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?

  Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It clearly explains the semantic difference between providing `database` (check one database) and omitting it (check every configured entry and validate the config file). This is sufficient for correctly using the single optional parameter.

  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 specific diagnostic action ('Check psql and connectivity') and the exact scope ('for one database or all of them'). It also lists concrete reported outputs, making it clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like list_databases and execute_sql.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description explains how to scope the check by omitting or providing `database`, but gives no guidance on when to prefer this tool over siblings such as list_databases, execute_sql, or describe_schema. Usage context is implied rather than explicitly stated.

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

• describe_schemaA
  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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states that the operation is always read-only, even against a writable database, and it clarifies the two distinct behaviors based on the table parameter. This adds meaningful safety and behavior context beyond the schema.

  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 well-structured: it states the core purpose first, then uses a clear without/with contrast to explain behavior. Every sentence earns its place, and the read-only note is brief but high-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?

  The description covers the two main behaviors, the read-only guarantee, and the inputs that matter most. An output schema exists, so not detailing return values is acceptable. A small gap is that it does not mention how schema and database relate or what happens if the database or table does not exist, but for a read-only introspection tool this is minor.

  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 0%, so the description needs to explain parameters. It does explain the table parameter thoroughly (without vs. with behavior), but it does not add meaning for database or schema beyond their obvious names. The schema default values are visible in the input schema, so this is partially compensated.

  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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Describe a schema's tables, or one table's columns and indexes') and then details both invocation modes. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_databases and execute_sql.

  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 explains when to use the tool without a table (list tables, views, column counts) versus with a table (columns, constraints, indexes). It also signals that this is the safe introspection alternative by noting it is always read-only, but it does not explicitly name execute_sql as the write-capable alternative.

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

• execute_sqlA
  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 behavioral disclosure burden and does it well: it reveals CSV output, that write permissions are configuration-fixed, and that read-only databases only run read queries. This is meaningful context beyond the schema, though it does not explicitly warn that writable databases may be modified.

  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 tight sentences with the core action and output front-loaded. Every sentence earns its place: the first defines what the tool does, the second adds the database-source and write-permission constraints.

  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 description covers the key facts an agent needs: what SQL is run, where database names come from, whether writes are allowed, and what the return format is. Missing details like `max_rows` semantics and error behavior are present, but the output schema and otherwise solid context keep this from being incomplete.

  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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for `database` by tying it to list_databases and implies `query` is the SQL to run, but it leaves `max_rows` entirely unexplained, which is a gap for an optional limit parameter.

  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?

  "Run SQL against a configured database and return the rows as CSV" states a specific verb, resource, and output format. This clearly distinguishes execute_sql from siblings like list_databases, test_connection, and describe_schema, which do not execute queries.

  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 gives concrete usage context by noting that `database` is a name from list_databases and that write behavior is fixed by configuration. It does not explicitly name alternative tools for when not to use it, but the prerequisite and permission constraints provide clear operational guidance.

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

• list_databasesA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the operation is a listing, describes the returned fields (name, connection target, write acceptance), and proactively notes that passwords are never included. This is meaningful behavioral context, though it does not explicitly state side-effect-free behavior.

  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 and front-loaded, with the core purpose in the first sentence and supporting output/security details in two short follow-up sentences. Every sentence contributes useful information with no redundancy.

  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 zero-parameter tool with an output schema, the description fully covers what the agent needs to know: what the tool returns, the security guarantee about passwords, and the general scope. Nothing critical is missing.

  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 description does not need to explain parameter meanings. The baseline of 4 applies, and the description adds value by focusing on what the output contains rather than input details.

  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 a specific verb ('List') and resource ('configured PostgreSQL databases') and clearly distinguishes this tool from the siblings execute_sql, test_connection, and describe_schema by focusing on database enumeration and write-access status. The purpose is immediately obvious and not confused with querying, testing connections, or describing schemas.

  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 used when you need to see available databases and their read-only status, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over siblings or when not to use it. There is no mention of alternatives or conditions, leaving usage largely implied.

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