Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• seedance_get_taskB
  3.4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Describes return fields but doesn't disclose idempotency, error behavior, or rate limits. Without annotations, more behavioral context would be beneficial.

  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?

  Two sentences plus Args/Returns section is concise and front-loaded. No wasted words, though could be slightly more structured.

  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 one parameter and presence of output schema, description covers purpose and key field. Could note status values or error handling, but overall adequate.

  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?

  Adds meaning to the single required parameter by specifying it's the ID from create_video, which the schema (0% coverage) lacks. Fully compensates for schema gap.

  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?

  Description clearly states it queries task status, linking to create_video for context. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling seedance_wait_task, which may have similar purpose.

  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?

  Implied usage after create_video, but no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternatives compared to other seedance tools.

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

• seedance_create_videoA
  3.5/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the return fields (ok, task_id, raw API response) hinting at async behavior but does not explicitly state that the task is asynchronous, requires polling, or has any side effects. Behavioral traits like authentication needs or rate limits are absent.

  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 concise and well-structured with a brief header and clear bullet list of arguments. The return line is informative. Only minor improvement possible by grouping optional parameters or adding a usage note.

  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 9 parameters and no annotations, the description covers all parameters but misses broader context: no mention of whether the tool is async, how to handle the returned task_id, or when to use this vs sibling tools. The output schema is not referenced but the description covers return fields.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters5/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter's purpose, examples (e.g., '16:9' for ratio), and defaults (e.g., model from env var). It adds significant value beyond the schema's bare titles.

  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 purpose: 'Create a Seedance 2.0 video generation task.' with a specific verb and resource. The sibling tool 'seedance_create_and_wait' implies this tool creates without waiting, distinguishing it effectively.

  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 vs alternatives like 'seedance_create_and_wait' or others. It lacks context for decision-making, such as when to poll vs wait.

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

• seedance_create_and_waitA
  4.1/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description discloses the polling behavior (interval_seconds, timeout_seconds) and return structure. It explains that it waits for completion, which is key behavioral info. However, it doesn’t mention side effects like resource consumption or rate limits.

  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 moderately lengthy due to parameter listing, but front-loads the purpose. The Args section is clear and structured. It could be slightly more concise, but it is still efficient.

  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?

  The description covers purpose, all parameters, and return values. Given the high parameter count and existence of output schema, it is fairly complete. However, it lacks prerequisites, error handling details, or differentiation from siblings.

  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?

  Schema coverage is 0% (no parameter descriptions in schema), so the description carries the full burden. It provides concise explanations for all 11 parameters, e.g., 'prompt: Text description of the video to generate. Required.' This adds significant value beyond the parameter names.

  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 it creates a Seedance video task and waits for completion in one call. This distinguishes it from siblings like seedance_create_video (create only) and seedance_wait_task (wait only).

  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 as a synchronous alternative to separate create and wait steps, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the siblings. No when-not-to-use or alternative guidance is provided.

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

• seedance_download_videoA
  4.1/5.0
  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 filename sanitization and .mp4 enforcement, plus return format. However, it omits error behavior and whether the tool is read-only or has side effects.

  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 concise, with a clear single-sentence purpose followed by structured Args/Returns sections. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

  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?

  For a simple download tool, the description covers the essential context: input (URL, optional filename), output (JSON with ok, path, source URL). Sibling tools provide surrounding context. An output schema exists, further reducing the need for return details.

  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?

  With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds crucial meaning: 'video_url' is explained as URL, and 'filename' is described as optional with sanitization and .mp4 enforcement. This compensates well for the schema gap.

  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's purpose: 'Download a generated video to local disk.' It specifies the verb (download), resource (generated video), and destination (local disk). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that handle creation and task management.

  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 after video generation, but lacks explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternatives. No guidance is given beyond the basic action.

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

• seedance_wait_taskA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Given no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the polling behavior, the role of interval_seconds and timeout_seconds, and the return format (including ok, status, video_url, error). This provides sufficient transparency for an agent to understand tool behavior.

  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 extremely concise: a one-line purpose statement, followed by a clear parameter list, and a return description. Every sentence adds value, and the information is front-loaded with the core action.

  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 presence of an output schema, the description is fully complete. It covers all inputs, the polling behavior, and the expected return fields (including ok, error). No gaps remain.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters5/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  With schema description coverage at 0%, the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: task_id (task to poll), interval_seconds (polling interval with default from environment), timeout_seconds (max wait). This adds meaning beyond the schema's property names and types.

  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's purpose: 'Poll a Seedance task until completion or timeout.' It uses a specific verb ('poll') and resource ('Seedance task'), and distinguishes from siblings like 'seedance_get_task' (single status check without polling) and 'seedance_create_and_wait' (creates then waits).

  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. While the purpose implies usage for waiting on tasks, no direct guidance or exclusions are provided. The context of sibling tools suggests differentiation, but the description itself lacks usage instructions.

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

• seedance_get_configA
  4.6/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations provided, so description fully carries burden. It reveals that API key is masked and lists returned fields (base_url, model, etc.), offering good insight into behavior. Could mention if any external calls occur, but not required for a local config read.

  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 tight sentences plus a bullet list of return fields. No wasted words; every sentence serves a purpose. Front-loaded with core action and key constraint (masked key).

  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?

  With no parameters and a simple read operation, the description fully covers purpose, use case, and return format. Output schema exists externally, so return description is sufficient.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters5/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Input schema has zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100% trivially. Description adds significant value by enumerating specific return fields and noting the API key masking, going well beyond the empty 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?

  Description clearly states verb 'Return' and resource 'runtime Seedance MCP config diagnostics', explicitly masking API key. Distinct from siblings like seedance_create_video or seedance_get_task, which focus on video creation and task status.

  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?

  States 'Use this tool to verify which config the running MCP process is using', providing clear context. No explicit exclusions or alternatives needed given the tool's specific diagnostic role.

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