Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• comind.self_hostA
  4.1/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by mentioning the returned Docker command and run modes, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations indicate, which is acceptable.

  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, front-loaded with the core action ('Returns the copy-paste Docker command'), and the second sentence provides usage context. Every sentence is necessary and concise.

  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 tool with an output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool returns and when to use it. No additional information is needed given the tool's simplicity.

  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?

  There are no parameters, and the schema coverage is 100%. The description mentions 'Takes no arguments', which is consistent but does not add meaning beyond the schema. 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?

  The description clearly states that the tool returns a Docker command for self-hosting the gateway, with specific mention of available run modes. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like comind.about (info) and comind.config (configuration) by focusing on deployment.

  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 says 'Call this when you want to deploy or evaluate the full gateway', providing clear context for when to use. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use, though the sibling tools cover other use cases.

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

• comind.openapi_exampleA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by detailing what the example includes (ordered steps, POST body details, tool name), consistent with a safe read operation.

  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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the key result. It is concise but could be slightly more structured with bullet points; however, it earns its place with no waste.

  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 tool with an output schema, the description fully covers what the tool returns and the context (OpenAPI to MCP conversion example). No gaps remain.

  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?

  With zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the description adds no parameter info, which is appropriate. Baseline score for 0 parameters is 4.

  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 returns a worked, copy-paste example of converting OpenAPI 3.x APIs into MCP tools, specifying included components (ordered steps, POST body, tool name). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'comind.config' and 'comind.self_host' by focusing on example generation.

  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 obtaining an example but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide when-not-to-use guidance. The purpose is clear, but explicit usage context is missing.

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

• comind.mcp_proxy_exampleA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds beyond this by detailing the constructed commands (HTTP, bearer, etc.) and confirms the tool is safe (no side effects). No contradiction with annotations.

  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 short sentences: the first lists the output, the second states prerequisites. No wasted words, front-loaded with key 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 no parameters and an existing output schema, the description covers what the tool returns and when to use it. It does not repeat output schema details, which is appropriate. Completeness is high for this simple tool.

  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?

  There are no parameters (empty input schema), and schema coverage is 100%. The description correctly notes 'Takes no arguments', which aligns with the schema. No further parameter semantics 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 explicitly states what the tool returns: ready-to-use commands (HTTP endpoint, Bearer header, claude mcp add line, mcp-proxy bridge, raw JSON-RPC curl). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'about', 'config', 'openapi_example', and 'self_host', which serve different purposes.

  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 says 'Use this once you have a deployed gateway, a group id and an agent key', providing clear prerequisites and context. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives, but given the narrow scope, this guidance is sufficient.

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

• comind.aboutA
  4.7/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. The description adds context about what is returned (structured overview) and that it takes no arguments, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations imply. It contradicts nothing.

  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, efficient and front-loaded with purpose and usage. Every sentence adds value; no redundancy.

  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 no parameters, output schema present (indicated but not shown), and rich annotations, the description fully addresses what agents need: content, safety, and ordering.

  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?

  No parameters; the description correctly notes 'Takes no arguments.' With 0 parameters, baseline is 4, and the description adds no extra meaning but is accurate.

  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 returns a structured overview of ComindMCP, listing specific content (name, version, etc.) and distinguishes it from siblings by noting it's the introductory tool.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines5/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  Explicitly says 'Call this first to learn what this server is... before using the other comind.* tools,' providing clear guidance on when to use.

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

• comind.configA
  4.7/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  Annotations already mark it as read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds value by detailing the content (each variable with requirement, default, secret flag, purpose), which goes beyond the annotations. No contradictions.

  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: first states what it returns, second states its usage. Every sentence adds value, no wasted words, and the main purpose is front-loaded.

  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 zero parameters, an output schema, and a straightforward purpose, the description fully covers what the tool does and when to use it. It mentions the specific fields in the returned reference, so it is 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?

  There are zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description explicitly says 'Takes no arguments,' confirming this. No additional parameter information is needed, earning a baseline 4.

  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 that the tool returns the full environment-variable reference for deploying the gateway, including specifics about each variable (requirement, default, secret flag, purpose). This distinguishes it from siblings like comind.about or comind.self_host.

  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 advises when to use it: 'Use this to assemble the env for a production deployment.' It does not mention when not to use it or alternatives, but given zero parameters and clear purpose, this is adequate guidance.

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