Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• delete_entityB
  3.1/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether deletion is permanent, irreversible, or requires confirmation. Lacks essential context for a mutation tool.

  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?

  Single sentence, direct and to the point. Could benefit from slightly more context without losing conciseness.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness2/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Minimal description for a deletion tool with no output schema and no annotations. Does not explain return values, side effects, or preconditions. Incomplete for safe usage.

  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 100%, and parameter descriptions in the schema are adequate. The tool description repeats 'by ID' but adds no new meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

  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?

  Clearly states the action (delete), the resource (entity in easyJOB), and the method (by ID). Distinguishes from siblings like create_or_update_entity and query_entities.

  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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of prerequisites 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.

• create_or_update_entityB
  3.3/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations provided; description only says 'create or update' but lacks details on upsert behavior, authentication, or side effects. For a mutation tool with zero annotations, this is insufficient.

  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?

  Single sentence, no filler. Front-loaded with action and scope. Could benefit from more structure but remains efficient.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness2/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  No output schema, nested object parameter without structure guidance, no return value or error description. Generic tool with many unknowns, incomplete for an agent to invoke correctly.

  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 100% with descriptions for both parameters. Description adds no extra meaning beyond schema, so baseline score of 3 applies.

  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?

  Clearly states it creates or updates any entity, with examples like TimeRecording and Task. Distinguishes from siblings (delete, query, search, track) by covering the create/update use case.

  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?

  Implied usage: use for creating/updating entities as opposed to delete or query. No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor alternatives mentioned.

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

• query_entitiesB
  3.4/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations provided, so description bears full responsibility. It calls the query 'generic' but doesn't explain behavior like read-only nature, pagination, performance impact, or security needs. Insufficient disclosure for a potentially heavy query.

  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, front-loaded with action and scope. No filler words; every sentence adds value.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness2/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  No output schema and no explanation of response format, error cases, or typical use. The description is too brief for a complex query tool with a nested input object.

  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 100%, so parameters are fully documented in the schema. Description adds context about entity types but no additional semantics beyond schema. Baseline score applies.

  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?

  Clearly states the verb 'Execute a generic FetchsonQuery' and the resource 'any easyJOB entity', listing examples like User, Job, TimeRecording. Distinguishes well from sibling tools like create_or_update_entity and delete_entity.

  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?

  Implicitly suggests use for querying/reading data but lacks explicit when-to-use vs. siblings, no exclusions or alternative recommendations. Middle score due to absence of guidance.

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

• track_timeA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions creating an entry and supports duration or start/end times, but omits critical behavioral info like authentication requirements, idempotency, or error handling.

  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?

  Three concise sentences that front-load the main action and add key details about parameter usage. No unnecessary information.

  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?

  Description covers the primary function and key parameter constraint, but lacks details on return values, error handling, and prerequisites. Adequate but with 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?

  Schema coverage is 100%, but description adds value by specifying mutual exclusivity of amount vs from_time/to_time, which is not in individual parameter descriptions.

  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 it logs working hours on a specific job in easyJOB and creates a TimeRecording entry. It distinguishes from sibling tools which are general CRUD or search operations.

  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?

  Description implies use for logging time on jobs, but does not explicitly state when not to use or alternatives. Sibling tools are for different purposes, so context is clear.

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

• search_jobsA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations provided. Description implies read-only but does not explicitly state safety. Lacks details on result limits or pagination. Adequate but could be improved.

  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?

  Three concise sentences: action, return, usage. No fluff, 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?

  For a simple 1-parameter search tool without output schema, description covers purpose, return, and usage context. Missing details on result set size but sufficient for basic understanding.

  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 already has description with wildcard mention. Description adds that query matches Name, ShortName, or JobNo, which provides useful context but is not extensive. Schema coverage 100% sets baseline at 3.

  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?

  Clearly states the tool searches for jobs by Name, ShortName, or JobNo and returns IDs. Distinguishes from siblings like query_entities by being job-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?

  Explicitly instructs to use this before logging time, linking to track_time sibling. Provides clear workflow context but no when-not or alternatives.

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

• get_user_idA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations provided, so description carries burden. Discloses use of EASYJOB_USERNAME environment variable but does not detail behavior (e.g., caching, error handling, network call). Adequate for a simple getter but lacking 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?

  Two concise sentences front-loading purpose and context. No superfluous information. Every sentence earns its place.

  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 zero-parameter tool without output schema, description is sufficient. Identifies what is retrieved and its necessity for time tracking. Could mention return type but not critical.

  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?

  Input schema has no parameters, but description adds value by specifying the configured user comes from EASYJOB_USERNAME. This clarifies implicit source. With 100% schema coverage, description enhances meaning.

  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 gets the internal easyJOB User ID for the configured user. Verb 'Get' and resource 'internal easyJOB User ID' are specific. Distinguishes from sibling tools like track_time which requires this ID.

  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 mentions the User ID is required to track hours, implying use before track_time. Does not explicitly state when not to use or alternatives, but clear enough for a simple utility.

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