Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• nous_portal_statusB
  3.4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description adds the key behavioral note 'Never reveals credentials', which is important for safety. However, it does not disclose other traits like response format, potential errors, or latency. It is adequate but not thorough.

  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 extremely concise, using two short sentences with no filler. Every word adds meaning, and the key point is front-loaded.

  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 the tool's simplicity (0 params, no output schema), the description conveys the core function and a critical behavioral trait. However, it may lack detail about what 'configured' means or what the output looks like, leaving some gaps.

  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 coverage is 100%. The description adds value by clarifying the purpose and the credential constraint, meeting the baseline for a parameterless tool.

  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 uses a specific verb 'Report' and resource 'portable Nous Portal adapter configured status'. It clearly indicates the tool's function without ambiguity, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools beyond context.

  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?

  No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like nous_portal_routes or nous_portal_auth_start. The description only states what it does, omitting usage context or prerequisites.

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

• nous_portal_auth_startA
  3.9/5.0
  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 key behaviors: makes one unmetered external request, stores private device code locally, and never opens a browser or sends the code. However, it does not describe the return value or what to do with the stored code. Missing details about the authentication state.

  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?

  Two sentences, each providing essential information. The first sentence states the action, and the second elaborates on key behaviors. No wasted words, and the verb 'Start' is front-loaded.

  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 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main behavioral aspects. However, it does not explain what the tool returns, how to use the stored code (e.g., with auth_poll), or potential errors. For a start tool, it is adequate but could guide the next steps.

  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 no parameters with 100% coverage (none exist). According to guidelines, high schema coverage gives a baseline of 3. The description adds no parameter semantics because there are no parameters.

  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: 'Start a Nous Portal device-code login.' It distinguishes from sibling tools like nous_portal_auth_poll, which handles polling, and nous_portal_status, which likely shows status. The verb 'Start' plus the resource 'device-code login' is specific.

  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 in headless/automated contexts by stating it never opens a browser or sends the code elsewhere. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool vs. siblings or when not to use it. The context signals indicate no parameters, so it's straightforward.

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

• nous_portal_auth_pollA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description fully discloses key behaviors: it makes one unmetered external request, atomically stores tokens, and does not return token values. This gives the agent a clear understanding of side effects, though it could mention whether the token retrieval is idempotent or destructive on retry.

  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 long, with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the purpose, behavior, and constraints without unnecessary details.

  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 the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is complete. It covers what the tool does, how it behaves (external request, token storage), and what it returns (nothing). The agent has enough information to use it correctly in the auth flow.

  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 the schema coverage is 100%. Per guidelines, a baseline of 4 is appropriate since the description does not need to explain parameters. The description correctly indicates no parameters are 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?

  The description clearly states the action ('poll'), the resource ('a previously started device-code login'), and the scope ('exactly once'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'nous_portal_auth_start' (starts flow) and 'nous_portal_status' (general status) by specifying the exact step in the authentication process.

  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 use after 'nous_portal_auth_start' with 'previously started' and constraints polling to exactly once. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., not to poll repeatedly) or what prerequisites are needed (e.g., having a device code from auth_start).

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

• nous_portal_routesA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description provides valuable behavioral disclosure: 'Makes no external request and invokes no paid tool.' This assures the agent of no side effects or costs, beyond the basic listing functionality.

  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 with no redundancy. It front-loads the main action and adds critical behavioral context efficiently.

  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 listing tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description provides all necessary information: what it does, that it is local, and that it has no cost or external dependencies.

  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 coverage is 100%. For 0 parameters, the baseline score is 4. The description correctly omits parameter details as none exist.

  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 locally derived Nous Portal vendor gateway routes. It uses a specific verb ('list') and resource ('routes'), and contrasts with siblings by noting it makes no external request and is free.

  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 when to use this tool (when listing local routes without external calls). Sibling tools (status, auth start, auth poll) have different purposes, so context is clear, though no explicit when-not-to-use instructions are given.

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