Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• List DOS GamesB
  3.4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe, repeatable read operation. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond what annotations provide - just the scope of 'all available' games. No rate limits, authentication needs, or return format details are mentioned.

  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 perfectly concise - a single sentence that directly states the tool's purpose with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and doesn't include any unnecessary elaboration.

  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?

  For a simple listing tool with good annotations (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive) and no parameters, the description is adequate but minimal. It lacks information about what the output contains (game names, metadata, etc.) and doesn't provide usage context relative to sibling tools. The annotations cover safety aspects, but the description could add more operational 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?

  With 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, there are no parameters to document. The description appropriately doesn't waste space discussing nonexistent parameters. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for parameterless tools where the schema already fully documents the empty parameter set.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose4/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('DOS games'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It specifies 'all available' which provides scope, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'open-dos' or 'close-app' beyond the listing function.

  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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, when this listing operation is appropriate, or how it relates to sibling tools like 'open-dos' (which might be for launching games) or 'close-app'.

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

• close-appA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=true, covering key behavioral traits. The description adds context about closing a server to resolve errors, which is useful but doesn't elaborate on effects like termination or cleanup beyond what annotations imply.

  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 main action and followed by usage guidance. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured.

  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 complexity (simple destructive operation), rich annotations, and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It explains the purpose and usage context but could benefit from more detail on what 'close' entails (e.g., termination effects) to fully compensate for the lack of output schema.

  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 100%, with the parameter 'port' fully documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any additional meaning or details about the parameter beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline for high coverage.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose4/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the action ('Close') and resource ('existing running mcp-dos server'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from its sibling 'open-dos' beyond the opposite action, missing a direct comparison that would warrant a 5.

  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 this tool: 'if you are getting erros when starting a new server.' This gives a clear context for usage, helping the agent decide when to invoke it versus alternatives, though it doesn't name specific siblings.

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

• open-dosA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  The description adds valuable context beyond annotations by explaining that users need to check available games first and mentioning 'js-dos' as the implementation technology. While annotations already declare this as a safe, read-only, idempotent operation, the description provides useful practical guidance without contradicting the annotations.

  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 perfectly concise with two sentences that each earn their place - the first states the purpose, the second provides critical usage guidance. No wasted words, perfectly front-loaded with the core functionality.

  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 simple single-parameter tool with excellent annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint) and no output schema needed, the description provides sufficient context. It could potentially mention what happens when the tool is invoked (e.g., opens a game interface), but the annotations cover safety concerns adequately.

  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?

  With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already fully documents the single 'game' parameter. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'exact key' and referring to the list tool, but doesn't provide additional parameter semantics beyond what's already in the structured data.

  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 specific action ('Open and play') and resource ('a DOS game using js-dos'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'close-app' and 'List DOS Games'. It provides a concrete example of what the tool does rather than just restating the name.

  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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('to see the exact key you need to use and the available games') and provides a clear alternative ('Use `list`'), giving perfect guidance on when to use this tool versus its sibling.

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