Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• mnova_process_1dB
  3/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the output behavior ('export auditable spectrum artifacts'), which adds some transparency. However, it omits details about side effects, prerequisites, or whether the input file is modified, so it is only partially 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?

  The description is a single sentence that is front-loaded with the core action and provides no filler or redundant information. It is appropriately concise.

  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?

  Given the presence of an output schema and multiple parameters, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the processing workflow, what 'auditable spectrum artifacts' are, or how the optional parameters affect execution. The output schema covers return values, but the overall context is incomplete.

  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 needed to compensate by explaining parameters. It mentions no details about input_path, output_dir, or processing_template_path beyond what the schema field names imply. The term 'processing_template_path' in particular remains unexplained.

  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 the tool processes 1D NMR data with Mnova and exports auditable spectrum artifacts, giving a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like mnova_prepare_structure_1d or mnova_apply_assignments_1d, so it falls just short of a 5.

  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?

  The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. Sibling tools exist but there is no comparative context, leaving the agent without direction for alternative selection.

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

• mnova_statusA
  3.6/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It lists what is checked but does not state whether the tool is read-only, whether it performs diagnostics, or what 'bridge readiness' entails. No side effects or error conditions are disclosed.

  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, terse sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action ('Check') and lists key target areas compactly.

  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 the tool has no parameters and an output schema exists to document return values, the description's coverage of the status domains is sufficient. The only minor gap is the undefined term 'workflow,' but the output schema likely resolves this.

  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, so the schema fully covers parameter semantics. The description adds no parameter details, but none 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 uses a specific verb 'Check' and names distinct resources: MestReNova, bridge readiness, supported formats, and workflow. This clearly differentiates the status tool from its siblings (mnova_process_1d, mnova_prepare_structure_1d, mnova_apply_assignments_1d), which are action-oriented.

  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?

  The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. The context of a status check is implied but never stated as a prerequisite for processing or preparation.

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

• mnova_prepare_structure_1dA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses key steps (processing, extracting metadata, optional Verify, saving a .mnova) but does not mention side effects, file overwrites, required external dependencies, or failure modes. Moderate transparency.

  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, and each sentence adds needed detail without fluff. It is concise and well-structured.

  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 description gives a good high-level overview and mentions the output's purpose (assignment-plan JSON), but lacks parameter-level details (especially processing_template_path) and does not describe the return format beyond 'evidence package'. Adequate but with clear gaps.

  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 implies input_path and structure_path ('Open 1D NMR plus CDX/CDXML') and run_verification ('optionally runs Mnova Verify'), and output_dir implied by 'saves a prepared .mnova document', but it completely omits processing_template_path. Significant gap for a key parameter.

  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 opens 1D NMR plus a structure file, processes the spectrum, extracts atom metadata and peak IDs, optionally runs Verify, and saves a prepared .mnova document. This specific verb+resource set distinguishes it from siblings like mnova_process_1d (likely processing-only) and mnova_apply_assignments_1d (applying assignments).

  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 gives clear context: it is used to create an 'evidence package' for a separate assignment-plan JSON, indicating when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state alternatives or exclusions (e.g., 'for simple processing use mnova_process_1d').

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

• mnova_apply_assignments_1dA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It transparently discloses multiple behaviors: writing labels onto structure and peaks, optional verification, saving a new .mnova file, and rejecting low-confidence assignments unless allowed. This gives a strong sense of side effects and constraints.

  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 sentences, front-loaded with the main action, followed by detailed behaviors and requirements. Every sentence adds value, with no redundancy or unnecessary 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?

  The description covers the full operation, prerequisites, parameter implications, and output behavior. It could more explicitly tie into the workflow of sibling tools (e.g., that the document must come from mnova_prepare_structure_1d), but it is complete for the tool's complexity.

  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 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by associating prepared_mnova_path, assignment_plan_path, run_verification, and allow_low_confidence with their roles. It implies output_dir via 'saves a new assigned .mnova file', though it does not explicitly name it.

  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 validates and writes an assignment plan into a prepared Mnova document, with specific actions like linking atoms to multiplet UUIDs and writing labels. This distinguishes it from siblings like mnova_prepare_structure_1d and mnova_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?

  The description implies prerequisites: a prepared Mnova document and an assignment plan, and provides requirements like lowercase labels and low-confidence handling. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the context is clear.

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