Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• list_recent_serversA
  3.6/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states the basic function and does not disclose behavioral traits like default behavior when no filter is given, data freshness, or limitations, leaving significant gaps.

  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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and free of redundant information, though it could be slightly more structured.

  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 no output schema, the description lacks details about return format, pagination, or the default range of 'recent'. It is adequate for a simple list but not fully 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?

  Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds marginal value by framing 'updatedWithinDays' as an optional filter, but doesn't provide meaning beyond what the schema offers.

  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 lists MCP servers from the official registry with an optional recency filter, and distinguishes it from siblings like search_registry by focusing on 'recently updated' servers.

  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 usage for spotting newly published servers and mentions optional filtering, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or 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.

• get_server_detailsA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It describes what data is returned (install packages, env vars, endpoints) but does not state that the operation is read-only, mention error handling (e.g., if server not found), or specify any authentication or rate limits. The behavior is implied as a safe fetch, but lacks explicit transparency.

  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, efficient sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, and includes all key details (name format, included items). No unnecessary words.

  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?

  For a tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what the tool returns (install packages, env vars, endpoints). It is complete for its purpose, though it could mention error cases or return format.

  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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds an example for the name parameter and confirms the version default, but does not provide additional semantics beyond what the schema already documents.

  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 'Fetch full details' and the resource 'one MCP server from the official registry', listing included data (install packages, env vars, endpoints) and providing an example name format. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_recent_servers and search_registry.

  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 guidance is implied but not explicit. The description indicates when to use this tool (by reverse-DNS name), but does not mention when not to use it or provide alternatives like using search_registry for discovery or list_recent_servers for a list. Sibling tools are present but not referenced.

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

• search_registryA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states it searches and returns servers, implying a read-only operation, but does not explicitly confirm non-destructiveness or mention any side effects, authorization needs, or rate limits. Adequate for a simple search, but could be more explicit.

  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 well-structured: two sentences, front-loaded with the main action and target, followed by what is returned. No extraneous information.

  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 (2 parameters, 100% schema coverage, no output schema), the description is mostly complete. It specifies the input and output fields. However, it does not cover potential edge cases or result ordering, which could be helpful. Still, it adequately equips an agent for correct use.

  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%, and the description does not add significant semantic value beyond the schema. It mentions 'substring match on name' which slightly reinforces the query parameter's role, but the schema already describes both parameters thoroughly. 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 tool's purpose: search the official MCP registry for servers by substring match on name. It specifies the action (search), the resource (registry), and the result fields (version, status, description). This distinguishes it from siblings like 'format_install_command' or 'list_recent_servers'.

  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 explains what the tool does but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives. It implies usage when looking for servers by name substring, but lacks 'when not to use' or references to sibling tools. The context is clear but exclusion guidance is missing.

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

• format_install_commandA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It clearly states no network contact and returns a runnable command. Side effects are absent. Could detail return format but overall 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?

  Single sentence with zero wasted words. 'Offline helper' front-loaded immediately communicates key constraint.

  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 simple tool with 4 params and no output schema, description fully covers purpose and key constraint. No missing critical information.

  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 high (75%) with descriptions for version, identifier, runtimeHint. Description lists registry types again, adding minimal new meaning. Baseline 3 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?

  Description clearly states the tool formats an install command from registry type and identifier. It distinguishes from sibling tools (get_server_details, list_recent_servers, search_registry) which query or list servers, not format commands.

  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 states it's an offline helper and does not contact the network, implying use when no network access is needed. Does not provide explicit when-not or alternatives, but sibling differentiation is clear.

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