Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• discord_get_messagesC
  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. While 'Retrieve' implies a read-only operation, it doesn't specify important behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication requirements, pagination behavior, or what happens when the limit exceeds available messages. The description lacks crucial operational context.

  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's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool and gets straight to the point.

  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 (message objects, error conditions), behavioral constraints, or how it differs from the 'advanced' sibling tool. Given the complexity of Discord API interactions, more contextual information would be helpful.

  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, thoroughly documenting both parameters with their types, constraints, and purposes. The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter information beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

  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 ('Retrieve') and resource ('messages from a Discord channel'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'discord_get_messages_advanced', which appears to serve a similar function with potentially different capabilities.

  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 like 'discord_get_messages_advanced'. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing channel access) or contextual factors that would help an agent choose between this and sibling tools.

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

• discord_get_messages_advancedC
  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 for behavioral disclosure. While it mentions the tool's capabilities (date range, keyword search, pagination), it doesn't describe important behavioral aspects like rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or what the response format looks like. For a read operation with multiple parameters, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

  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 single sentence that efficiently communicates the core capabilities. Every word earns its place, and it's front-loaded with the most important information about what makes this tool 'advanced'.

  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 complex tool with 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain return values, error handling, or important behavioral constraints. While the schema covers parameter documentation well, the description fails to provide the contextual understanding needed for effective tool selection and use.

  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 description mentions 'date range, keyword search, and pagination' which maps to some parameters (start_date, end_date, keyword, before/after). However, with 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents all 9 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond what's already in the structured schema, meeting the baseline expectation.

  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 as 'Advanced message retrieval with date range, keyword search, and pagination', which specifies the verb (retrieval) and resource (messages) along with key capabilities. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'discord_get_messages', leaving some ambiguity about what makes this 'advanced' version distinct.

  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. There's no mention of when to choose this over the simpler 'discord_get_messages' sibling, nor any context about prerequisites or typical use cases for these advanced filtering capabilities.

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

• discord_send_fileC
  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 sends files but doesn't mention permissions required, rate limits, file size restrictions, or what happens on success/failure. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

  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, front-loaded with the core action, efficiently lists file types without redundancy. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

  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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks critical behavioral details (e.g., permissions, limits, response format) and usage context, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to operate safely and effectively.

  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 fully documents all 5 parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond implying file types, which is already covered by the tool's purpose. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 action ('send') and resource ('any type of file to a Discord channel'), with examples of file types. It distinguishes from sibling tools like discord_send_message (which sends text) by specifying files, but doesn't explicitly contrast with discord_get_attachments (which retrieves files).

  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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like discord_send_message (for text) or discord_get_attachments (for retrieving files). The description implies usage for sending files but lacks context about prerequisites, limitations, or specific scenarios.

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

• discord_send_messageC
  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. While 'Send' implies a write operation, the description doesn't disclose important behavioral traits: whether this requires specific Discord permissions, rate limits, message length constraints, formatting options, or what happens on failure. It mentions nothing about the response format or 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 perfectly concise at just 7 words, front-loading the essential information with zero wasted words. Every element ('Send', 'text message', 'Discord channel') earns its place by contributing to understanding the tool's purpose without redundancy or 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?

  For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't address what the tool returns, error conditions, authentication requirements, or operational constraints. While the purpose is clear, the lack of behavioral and output information leaves significant gaps for an AI agent trying to use this tool effectively.

  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 both parameters clearly documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema - it doesn't explain channel_id format requirements, message content restrictions, or provide examples. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate parameter documentation coming entirely from 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 the action ('Send a text message') and target resource ('to a Discord channel'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like discord_send_file by specifying 'text message' rather than file attachment. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with discord_get_messages or other siblings beyond the verb difference.

  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 when to choose discord_send_message over discord_send_file for different content types, or how it relates to the get_messages tools. There's no information about prerequisites, permissions needed, or contextual constraints for sending messages.

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

• discord_get_attachmentsB
  3.3/5.0
  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 lacks behavioral details. It doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, rate limits, pagination behavior, or error conditions. The description only states what it retrieves, not how it behaves, leaving significant gaps for an agent.

  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 front-loads the core purpose and includes helpful examples (images, videos, etc.). Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

  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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool with 3 parameters. It covers the basic purpose but lacks behavioral context, return value explanation, and usage nuances. For a retrieval tool with moderate complexity, this is minimally adequate but has clear 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema (e.g., no extra context on channel_id format or content_type_filter usage). Baseline 3 is appropriate as 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 'retrieve' and the resource 'media attachments from a Discord channel', with examples of attachment types. It distinguishes from siblings like discord_get_messages (which retrieves messages) and discord_send_file (which sends files). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with discord_get_messages_advanced, which might also retrieve attachments, making it a 4 rather than a 5.

  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 when needing attachments rather than messages, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like discord_get_messages_advanced. It provides no guidance on prerequisites (e.g., channel access) or exclusions, leaving usage context partially inferred.

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