Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• explain_queryA
  3.5/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full weight but only discloses database-specific syntax differences (Postgres vs MySQL/SQLite). It fails to mention that EXPLAIN is read-only and does not modify data, and omits permission or side-effect details.

  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 with no fluff, front-loading the action and purpose, then adding a use case. Every sentence provides value.

  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 three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description adequately conveys the tool's purpose but is incomplete. It does not describe the output format (execution plan structure) or potential errors, which would help the agent understand return values.

  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 the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., describing 'sql' as 'SELECT statement to explain' is similar).

  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 runs EXPLAIN ANALYZE on Postgres and EXPLAIN on MySQL/SQLite for SELECT queries to show execution plans, differentiating it from sibling tools like run_query which executes queries.

  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 mentions it is 'useful for diagnosing slow queries,' providing basic usage context. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use this tool (e.g., for non-SELECT statements) or direct comparisons to alternatives like run_query.

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

• list_tablesA
  3.6/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It describes listing metadata, implying a read operation, but does not explicitly state it is non-destructive or discuss any side effects, authentication, or error conditions.

  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 wasted words, front-loaded with the core action and details.

  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?

  Adequate for a simple tool with one optional parameter. Could be slightly more explicit about being scoped to the specified connection, but generally complete.

  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 (connection). The tool description adds no additional meaning about the parameter beyond what is in the schema.

  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 lists all tables and views in a database with row counts and sizes. It distinguishes from siblings like describe_table (single table details) and list_connections.

  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. The description does not mention alternatives or when not to use it.

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

• run_queryA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  The description states it is read-only and returns formatted table, but with no annotations, it leaves gaps about error handling, timeout, multiple statements, and exact output format. It adds modest value over the schema.

  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, focused sentence that efficiently conveys the core functionality and constraint. No wasted words.

  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 has 4 parameters and no output schema, the description provides adequate context for the purpose but lacks details on return format, error handling, and query execution behavior.

  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 the description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond the schema definitions. The description does not elaborate on how parameters are used or constraints beyond schema.

  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 executes a read-only SELECT query and returns results as a formatted table, specifying only SELECT and WITH statements are permitted, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like describe_table, explain_query, etc.

  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 limits usage to SELECT and WITH statements, indicating when not to use (e.g., DML statements). However, it does not provide guidance on when to prefer run_query over sibling tools like explain_query for analysis.

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

• describe_tableA
  4.1/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Although no annotations are provided, the description clearly states what the tool returns (columns, indexes, foreign keys) and is a read-only operation. It does not discuss permissions or error handling, but for a descriptive tool, the transparency is adequate.

  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 front-loads the main action and outputs. No filler words; every piece of information is necessary and well-structured.

  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 the tool's simplicity and the absence of an output schema, the description is complete: it lists all major output categories (columns, indexes, foreign keys) and specifies it works for tables or views. No critical information is missing.

  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%, with both parameters documented in the schema. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, resulting in a baseline score.

  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 'Show' and clearly defines the resource: columns (with types, nullability, defaults, primary keys), indexes, and foreign keys for a table or view. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_tables (which only lists tables) and explain_query (which explains queries).

  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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., list_tables for listing tables, explain_query for query analysis). Usage context is implied from the sibling names but not directly provided.

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

• list_connectionsA
  4.6/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations provided, but description implies a read-only operation without side effects. Sufficiently transparent for a simple list 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?

  Two sentences with no waste. Front-loaded with the verb 'List' and immediately conveys purpose.

  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?

  No output schema, but description hints at return content (connections and dialects). Could specify format, but adequate for a simple list 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?

  No parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. Description adds no parameter info but none is needed. Baseline for 0 params 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?

  Clearly states 'List all configured database connections and their dialects' - specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from siblings by suggesting it be called first.

  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 see what databases are available', providing clear usage guidance relative to other tools.

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