Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• write-mcp-configA
  3.5/5.0
  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 disclosing side effects. It meaningfully discloses that a timestamped backup of the previous file is created before writing, which is valuable behavioral context for a mutating disk operation. It does not detail the exact target path or overwrite semantics, but the backup behavior is a significant transparency improvement.

  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, front-loaded with the core purpose and then adding the key backup side effect. Every word contributes meaningful information with no repetition or filler.

  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 write/config tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is functional but leaves gaps: it does not specify where the config is stored, how overwrites interact with the backup, whether validation occurs, or whether a restart/refresh is needed after writing. These details would materially affect correct invocation, though the core write-plus-backup behavior is covered.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters2/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 0% and the description provides no explanation of the 'config' parameter or its nested structure. The schema itself reveals property names and requirements, but the description does nothing to clarify the intended meaning, format, or relationship to mcpServers, leaving the parameter semantics under-explained.

  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 a specific action, 'Persist an MCP config to disk', identifying the resource and operation. It is distinguishable from read-mcp-config and open-mcp-config-manager by the write/persist framing, though it does not explicitly name a sibling or contrast itself.

  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 usage: use this when you need to save an MCP configuration to disk. It provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and does not mention alternatives such as read-mcp-config or open-mcp-config-manager, leaving selection partially to inference.

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

• check-server-statusA
  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 the full burden. It discloses the operation's mechanism (initialize handshake) and its purpose (determining which servers respond), which is useful. However, it is silent on timeout/error handling, failure reporting, return format, and whether the probe has any side effects, leaving meaningful gaps for a no-annotation tool.

  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?

  A single, front-loaded sentence states the action, method, and outcome with no filler. The parenthetical 'UI use only' is an efficient usage restriction. Every word contributes.

  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?

  The tool has no output schema and no annotations, but the description gives a reasonable summary: what it checks and what it reveals ('which ones actually respond'). Yet it omits details a caller would need, such as the shape of the result, behavior on non-responding or hanging servers, and the exact semantics of the servers parameter. It is adequate for a simple status probe but not fully self-contained.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters2/5

  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 only refers vaguely to 'configured MCP server' and does not explain the required key/command fields or the optional args/env properties within the servers array. The schema's property names are self-evident only to someone already familiar with MCP server configs, so the description fails to add the needed semantics.

  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 ('Probe') and resource ('each configured MCP server'), names the exact mechanism ('MCP initialize handshake'), and states the goal ('to see which ones actually respond'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like read-mcp-config and write-mcp-config, which deal with config file operations rather than live probing.

  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 marks the tool as 'UI use only', which is a clear when-not-to-use restriction for an agent. It also makes the intended scenario obvious (checking server liveness), though it does not name specific sibling tools as alternatives or give conditions for choosing one over the other.

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

• read-mcp-configA
  4.1/5.0
  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. The verb 'Read' and 'from disk' convey a non-mutating read operation, which is useful, but the description does not state what is returned (raw contents vs parsed config) or any error behavior. It is minimally transparent for a simple read tool.

  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?

  A single sentence that is front-loaded with the core action and resource, and includes the key constraint without any padding. Every word earns its place.

  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 zero-parameter read tool, the description covers the core function, but because there is no output schema, the return value is not described. The agent is left to infer whether the tool returns raw file text, parsed JSON, or a status object. This is a notable gap for a complete description.

  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 and schema description coverage is 100% vacuously. Per the baseline for no parameters, the description does not need to add parameter detail.

  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 ('Read') with a clear resource ('Claude Desktop's MCP config') and source ('from disk'). It also adds a usage context ('UI use only') and is readily distinguishable from siblings like write-mcp-config and open-mcp-config-manager.

  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 'UI use only' provides an explicit usage constraint, telling the agent this tool is intended for UI contexts. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the read vs. write split is implied strongly enough for a tool this simple.

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

• open-mcp-config-managerA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the tool opens an interactive panel, involves viewing/editing config, and can add/remove/update servers, which signals user-in-the-loop and potential writes. It does not mention whether changes are applied immediately or require user confirmation, but for a launcher-style tool this is reasonably transparent.

  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?

  A single sentence that front-loads the action ('Open an interactive panel') and packs the capabilities and advantage into a concise parenthetical. No filler.

  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 no-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the core action, resource, and effects. The only material gap is explicit usage rules versus sibling tools, which is already reflected in the usage_guidelines score.

  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 has zero properties, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. The description's functional explanation is sufficient; no parameter documentation is needed.

  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?

  States a specific verb ('Open') and resource ('interactive panel... MCP server configuration'), and enumerates add/remove/update capabilities. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like read-mcp-config or write-mcp-config, which operate directly on config data rather than launching an interactive panel.

  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 for interactive, user-driven configuration management ('interactive panel', 'without editing...by hand'), which contrasts with programmatic sibling tools. However, it never explicitly states when to choose this over read-mcp-config/write-mcp-config or that it is unsuitable for automated/headless use.

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

• restart-claudeA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It explicitly discloses that the tool quits and relaunches the application and notes UI-only usage, which is transparent about the side effect and intended scope.

  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?

  One concise sentence that front-loads the action and reason. No filler.

  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, no-output tool, the description fully covers what the tool does, why to use it, and a usage restriction (UI only). No schema or output needs to be described.

  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?

  Tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing to document. Baseline 4 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?

  States a specific verb (quit and relaunch) and resource (laude Desktop), plus the purpose (so config changes take effect). Clearly distinct from sibling tools that manage config files or server status.

  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?

  Gives a clear trigger: when config changes need to take effect. Does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is unambiguous given the sibling set.

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