Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• delete_pageC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

  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 adds some context by stating 'permanently,' which implies irreversibility and potential data loss, but it doesn't cover other critical aspects like required permissions, error conditions (e.g., if the page doesn't exist), or side effects. For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, 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.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It front-loads the key action and resource, and the word 'permanently' adds necessary emphasis without verbosity. Every part of the description earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

  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 tool's complexity as a destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., permissions, error handling), usage context relative to siblings, and expected outcomes. For a tool that permanently deletes data, more comprehensive guidance is needed to ensure safe and correct use.

  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 schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'slug' clearly documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

  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 action ('Delete') and resource ('a published page'), and specifies 'permanently' to emphasize the irreversible nature. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_page' or 'publish_page' beyond the obvious verb difference, which keeps it from a perfect score.

  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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., the page must exist and be published), nor does it reference sibling tools like 'update_page' for modifications instead of deletion. The description is standalone with no contextual usage hints.

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

• update_pageC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

  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 states this is an update operation, implying mutation, but doesn't cover critical aspects like required permissions, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or error handling. This is inadequate for a mutation tool without annotation support.

  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, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the key action and resource, making it highly concise and effective.

  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 tool's complexity as a mutation operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., side effects, auth needs), return values, or error cases, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to use it 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?

  The schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters (slug, html, name) thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying 'html' is for content updates, which aligns with the schema. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

  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 action ('Update') and resource ('HTML content of an existing published page'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from its sibling 'publish_page', which might handle similar content updates, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

  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 minimal guidance by specifying 'existing published page', implying it's for updates rather than creation. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use instructions, alternatives (e.g., vs. 'publish_page'), or prerequisites, leaving usage context vague.

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

• publish_pageB
  3.2/5.0
  Behavior2/5

  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 mentions the tool publishes content and returns a URL, but fails to address critical aspects like required permissions, whether publishing is irreversible, rate limits, or error handling for duplicate slugs. This is inadequate 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.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and outcome. Every word earns its place, with no redundant or vague phrasing.

  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?

  For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't cover behavioral traits (e.g., idempotency, side effects), error conditions, or response format details beyond mentioning a URL. More context is needed given the tool's complexity.

  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%, so the schema fully documents all parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain HTML validation or slug uniqueness). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation.

  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 specific action ('Publish HTML content'), the resource ('as a live, shareable page on ChatPipe'), and the outcome ('Returns a public URL'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like delete_page and update_page by focusing on creation and publication rather than modification or deletion.

  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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_page or list_projects. It lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., needing existing projects) or exclusions (e.g., not for updating existing pages).

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

• list_projectsA
  3.7/5.0
  Behavior2/5

  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 indicates a read-only operation ('List') but doesn't specify permissions, rate limits, pagination, or response format. The mention of 'metadata' is vague without detailing what metadata is included.

  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, efficient sentence that front-loads the key action and resource. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose without redundancy or unnecessary details.

  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 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but has gaps. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on behavioral aspects like permissions or output structure, which are important for a tool that returns data.

  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 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter information is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, focusing on the tool's purpose instead, which aligns with the baseline for zero 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 specific action ('List all') and resource ('your published ChatPipe pages/projects'), including what information is returned ('URLs and metadata'). It distinguishes from siblings like delete_page, publish_page, and update_page by focusing on retrieval rather than modification.

  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 viewing published pages/projects but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions 'published' items, which suggests a context, but lacks guidance on prerequisites, exclusions, or direct comparisons to sibling tools.

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