Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• scan_aceternity_componentC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  Without annotations, the description should fully disclose behavioral traits. It does not explain side effects (e.g., overwriting existing components), network requirements, or storage details. The description is too minimal.

  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 one short sentence (11 words), but it is concise and front-loaded. It could be slightly more informative without sacrificing 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?

  Given no output schema and no annotations, the description is too brief. It does not explain the scanning process, storage behavior, or what happens when the optional URL is not provided. More context is needed for an agent to use this tool 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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides about parameters; it only reinforces the source (Aceternity UI), which is already implicit in the tool name.

  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 scans an Aceternity UI component page and stores the component. The verb 'scan' is clear and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_aceternity_component_prompt' and 'scan_shadcn_component'.

  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 vs alternatives. No mention of prerequisites, fallback logic for optional URL, or recommendations for choosing between scanning and other tools.

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

• list_harvested_componentsB
  3.1/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It only states it 'lists' components, which implies a read operation, but does not mention any side effects, authorization needs, or default behaviors like sorting or pagination.

  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, short sentence with no extraneous words. Every word is necessary to convey the basic purpose.

  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 simple interface (1 parameter, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks context on what 'harvested' means or what the output contains, which would help a new user understand 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?

  The input schema covers 100% of parameters and includes a description for the only parameter 'source' (filter by source or all). The description adds no additional semantic value beyond the schema.

  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 it lists harvested and stored components, which defines the subject. It distinguishes from siblings like list_shadcn_components by focusing on harvested state, but it doesn't explicitly state that it aggregates from multiple sources.

  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 other list tools like list_shadcn_components or scan tools. There is no mention of prerequisites or appropriate contexts.

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

• list_shadcn_componentsB
  3.1/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states the action without disclosing behavioral traits like read-only, authorization needs, or pagination.

  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?

  Single sentence, no waste, front-loaded verb and resource.

  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?

  Despite simplicity, the description lacks information about what the list contains (e.g., component names, metadata) and does not specify output format, leaving agent partly in the dark.

  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 exist, so baseline 4 applies. The description adds no param details, but none are needed.

  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 verb 'lists' and the resource 'shadcn UI components', but does not differentiate from sibling tools like list_harvested_components.

  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; it simply states what it does without context of use cases or exclusions.

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

• scan_shadcn_componentB
  3.1/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. 'Scans and stores' implies mutation but lacks details on side effects, idempotency, or whether it overwrites existing stored components.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness3/5

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

  The description is a single sentence, making it concise, but it lacks structure or breakdown of behavior. It is not overly wordy, but could benefit from additional context.

  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 low complexity (1 param, no output schema), the description is minimally complete. However, it does not explain return values or confirm that the component is stored successfully, leaving some gaps.

  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% for the single parameter componentName, so baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema's example values; it is adequate but not improved.

  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 specific verb 'scans' and resource 'shadcn UI component', clearly indicating what the tool does. It distinguishes from sibling tool 'scan_aceternity_component' by naming shadcn specifically.

  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 siblings like 'get_shadcn_component_prompt' or 'scan_aceternity_component'. The description does not mention scenarios or exclusions.

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

• get_aceternity_component_promptB
  3.2/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'retrieves and generates', offering no info on side effects, permissions, or error states. It does not clarify if the operation is read-only or if prior harvesting is required.

  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, clear sentence with no redundant words. It front-loads the action and is appropriately concise for a simple tool.

  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, the description covers the core functionality but lacks details on output format, error handling, or component availability. It is minimally adequate but leaves some 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?

  The single parameter has 100% schema coverage, and the description adds context by specifying 'harvested Aceternity component', implying a prerequisite. This adds meaning beyond the schema's basic type and example.

  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 it retrieves a harvested Aceternity component and generates an integration prompt, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_shadcn_component_prompt. However, it could be more explicit about the scope.

  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, nor are there any prerequisites or exclusions. The sibling tools are listed but not contrasted.

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

• get_shadcn_component_promptB
  3.2/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as side effects, authentication needs, or whether the component must be pre-harvested. The description is minimal for a retrieval-plus-generation 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 sentence with 10 words, front-loaded with the key action, and contains no redundant information.

  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 has no output schema and no annotations, the description lacks detail on the return format or content of the integration prompt, and does not clarify that the component must already be harvested.

  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?

  With 100% schema coverage, the schema already defines the parameter as component name. The description adds no further meaning beyond a usage example, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed.

  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 retrieves a harvested shadcn component and generates a detailed integration prompt, with specific verbs and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like get_aceternity_component_prompt by specifying 'shadcn'.

  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 such as list_shadcn_components or scan_shadcn_component, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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