Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• resolve_domainA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

  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 discloses the tool's behavior by describing what it returns (entity info and endpoints), but lacks details on error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or performance characteristics. It adequately covers the core operation but misses deeper behavioral traits.

  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 well-structured and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose, followed by args and returns sections. Every sentence adds value: the first states the action, the second elaborates, and the bullet points clarify inputs and outputs without redundancy. It's efficient and easy to parse.

  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's moderate complexity (1 parameter, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is fairly complete. It explains the purpose, parameter, and return values. The output schema exists, so it needn't detail return structure, but it could benefit from more behavioral context like error cases or usage examples.

  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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful semantics by explaining the 'domain' parameter with an example ('e.g., "example-restaurant.com"'), clarifying it's the domain to resolve. This goes beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't detail format constraints or edge cases.

  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 ('resolve a domain') and resource ('MCP endpoints'), explaining it returns entity information and available endpoints. It distinguishes the tool's function with precise terminology like 'entity information' and 'capabilities', making its purpose unambiguous even without sibling tools for comparison.

  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 by stating 'Given a domain, returns...', suggesting it's for resolving domains to endpoints. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions. With no sibling tools, this is less critical, but the guidance remains implicit rather than explicit.

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