Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• compare_componentsA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains what the tool returns (differences in props, import path, source code), but it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, any side effects, authorization requirements, or performance implications. The description gives moderate transparency but lacks depth.

  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 sentence that is concise and to the point. It uses active voice and front-loads the core action. There is no redundant information, and every word contributes to the meaning.

  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 no output schema, the description explains the return value adequately by listing what differences are shown (props, import path, source code). It covers the essential information for a comparison tool. However, it could be slightly more comprehensive by including an example or note about the optional libraries parameter.

  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 both parameters having descriptions in the schema. The description adds no new meaning beyond the schema; it uses the same terms. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema already adequately documents the 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: comparing the same component across two or more libraries. It specifies the aspects compared (props, import path, source code), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_component (which presumably fetches a single component) and search_component (which searches for components). The verb 'compare' and resource 'components' are specific and unambiguous.

  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 should be used when one needs to compare a component across different libraries, but it does not explicitly state when to use it vs. alternatives. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned. With sibling tools like get_component and search_component, the usage context is somewhat clear but not articulated.

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

• get_componentA
  4/5.0
  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 hints at differencing output based on library (source code vs props+examples), but does not disclose response format, side effects, prerequisites, or error handling. Adequate but not detailed.

  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 concise sentences with no wasted words. The key information is front-loaded and efficient.

  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?

  No output schema exists, so the description should explain return values. It partially does by distinguishing output types per library, but lacks details on structure, errors, or edge cases. For a simple 2-parameter tool, it is fairly complete.

  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 coverage is 100% with clear parameter descriptions. The description adds value by explaining that for shadcn it returns source code, while for other libraries it returns props+examples, which enriches the semantic understanding beyond the schema.

  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 'Ambil' (get) and resource 'detail komponen' from a specific library. It distinguishes the type of details by library (source code for shadcn, props+examples for others), which helps differentiate from sibling tools like compare_components and search_component.

  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 for getting component details from a specific library, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the siblings. No exclusions or alternative guidance is provided.

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

• search_componentA
  4.2/5.0
  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 states the return is a list of libraries, but doesn't specify search behavior like case sensitivity, partial matching, or result limits. Adequate but not detailed.

  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: two sentences clearly stating purpose and return value. No unnecessary 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?

  For a search tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It explains what it does and what it returns, though it lacks notes on empty results or errors.

  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 coverage is 100% with good descriptions for both parameters (query with examples, library filter). The tool description adds that the result is a list of libraries, complementing the schema well.

  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 ('Cari' meaning search) and resource ('komponen UI'), and clearly distinguishes from siblings (compare_components, get_component) by stating it searches across all libraries and returns a list of libraries.

  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 states when to use this tool (to find which libraries have a UI component), but lacks explicit exclusions or alternatives. However, the sibling tools provide context for differentiation.

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