Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get_aprs_historyC
  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 full burden but only states what the tool does, not how it behaves. It doesn't mention authentication requirements (though the apiKey parameter hints at this), rate limits, error conditions, response format, or whether this is a read-only operation versus something that might modify data.

  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 states the core functionality without any unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the essential 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?

  For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (position history format), authentication requirements, error handling, or how it differs from sibling tools. The agent would need to guess about important behavioral aspects.

  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 description coverage, the input schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline but doesn't provide extra value.

  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 ('Get position history') and resource ('for a callsign with time range'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from its sibling 'get_aprs_position' which presumably retrieves current rather than historical position data.

  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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_aprs_position' or 'track_multiple_callsigns'. There's no mention of prerequisites, constraints, or typical use cases beyond the basic functionality stated.

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

• get_aprs_positionC
  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 the tool retrieves data but lacks details on rate limits, authentication requirements beyond the optional apiKey, error handling, or response format. This is insufficient for a tool that interacts with an external API.

  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 that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and efficiently conveys the essential information, making it easy to parse.

  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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the return data includes (e.g., coordinates, timestamp), potential errors, or how the optional apiKey interacts with system settings. For a tool fetching real-time data from an external service, more context is needed.

  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 input schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description does not add any additional meaning or context beyond what the schema provides, such as examples of valid callsigns or apiKey usage scenarios.

  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's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('current position data for a specific callsign from APRS.fi'), making it immediately understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_aprs_history' or 'track_multiple_callsigns', which might offer similar or overlapping functionality.

  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. It does not mention sibling tools or contexts where other tools might be more appropriate, leaving the agent to infer usage based on tool names alone.

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

• track_multiple_callsignsC
  2.9/5.0
  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 states the tool tracks callsigns but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as what 'track' entails (e.g., real-time monitoring, batch processing), rate limits, authentication needs (beyond the optional apiKey in schema), or output format. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with potential real-time or API interactions.

  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's appropriately sized and front-loaded, clearly stating the core functionality without unnecessary elaboration.

  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 complexity of tracking multiple callsigns (likely involving API calls and real-time data), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'track' means operationally, what the tool returns, or any constraints, making it inadequate for informed use by an AI agent.

  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 already documents both parameters (callsigns as an array of strings, apiKey as optional). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema, such as format details or usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

  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 ('track') and resource ('multiple callsigns'), specifying it handles multiple items at once. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its siblings (get_aprs_history, get_aprs_position, validate_aprs_key), which appear to be related APRS operations but have 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 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. It doesn't mention prerequisites like needing an API key, nor does it explain how this differs from sibling tools (e.g., tracking vs. getting history or position). Usage context is implied but not explicit.

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

• validate_aprs_keyB
  3.1/5.0
  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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool tests API key validity but doesn't describe what 'valid' means (e.g., authentication success, rate limit status), what happens on failure, or any side effects (e.g., logging, rate limiting). For a validation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

  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 directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy to understand quickly.

  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 low complexity (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on behavioral traits, usage context, and output expectations. For a validation tool, more information on what constitutes validity and potential outcomes would improve completeness.

  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 has 100% description coverage, with the parameter 'apiKey' clearly documented. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., format, examples, validation criteria). With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the parameter documentation adequately.

  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's purpose with a specific verb ('Test') and resource ('APRS.fi API key'), and it specifies the action ('validate'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from its siblings (e.g., get_aprs_history, get_aprs_position), which are likely read operations rather than validation tools.

  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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an API key), when validation is required, or how it relates to sibling tools like get_aprs_history. Usage is implied only by the tool's name and purpose.

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