Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• grant_accessA
  3.5/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses that protected groups (Tier 3) fail closed until gated, which is valuable. However, it does not indicate required permissions, reversibility, or response behavior, which are important for a mutation 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?

  The description is two concise sentences with no fluff. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds a key behavioral nuance. All information is front-loaded and efficient.

  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 output schema and no annotations, the description moderately covers the tool's behavior. It explains the core action and a critical failure mode, but lacks details on success outcomes, error conditions, and differentiation from siblings, leaving some gaps for an 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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already describes all three parameters. The description adds no additional parameter-level details beyond the schema, but it does provide context about group tiers, which indirectly relates to the 'group' parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

  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 it adds a user to a group, with specific verb and resource. It differentiates between normal and protected groups, providing some context for distinguishing from sibling tools like 'revoke_access', though it could be more explicit.

  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 provides context about tier-based failure behavior (Tier 2 vs Tier 3), which aids in usage decisions for different group types. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings like 'provision_user' or 'revoke_access', leaving room for ambiguity.

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

• deactivate_userA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It reveals that the tool creates a pending approval and does not execute immediately, which is critical behavioral context. However, it does not mention any additional traits like who can request, what the response looks like, or whether the request can be canceled, leaving some 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 two short, front-loaded sentences: the first states the action and tier, the second clarifies the deferred execution. Every word contributes value with no redundancy.

  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 simplicity (2 required params, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the core functionality and behavioral distinction. Some details about the approval workflow or return value would improve completeness, but it is adequate for the agent to understand the tool's purpose and basic 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 description coverage is 100% (both parameters have clear descriptions: 'Okta user id' and 'Required justification'). The tool description adds no additional parameter-level context beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

  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 verb ('Request user deactivation') and the resource ('user'), and specifies the scope ('Tier 3'). It also distinguishes this tool by stating it creates a pending approval and does not execute immediately, which differentiates it from sibling tools like revoke_access or provision_user.

  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 for requesting deactivation with Tier 3 approval, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., revoke_access). No guidance on prerequisites or exclusions is provided.

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

• provision_userA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions the staged status and that it is additive and audited, but it omits details like idempotency, error behavior, or permission requirements. Provides baseline but not comprehensive.

  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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and key details. Every word adds value, and following sentences are unnecessary for this simple tool.

  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 simplicity (3 parameters, no output schema, no nested objects), the description covers purpose, status, and operational properties. It lacks error handling or prerequisite details but is largely complete for agent invocation.

  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 meaningful property descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level information beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

  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 verb 'Provision', the resource 'new Okta user', and specifies the status 'STAGED', along with context (Tier 2, additive, audited). This distinguishes it from siblings like deactivate_user or grant_access, making the tool's purpose unmistakable.

  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 this tool is for initial user creation but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. No exclusion or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, though sibling names help infer context.

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

• get_userA
  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 must convey behavioral traits. It does disclose that the result is a 'sanitized profile or not-found', which is helpful. However, it does not mention authentication requirements or rate limits, which would be valuable for safe invocation.

  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 highly concise at two sentences, front-loading the key action and resource. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or filler.

  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 simplicity (single parameter, no output schema), the description covers the core functionality and return type adequately. It could mention possible error states beyond 'not-found', but overall it is complete enough for a straightforward lookup tool.

  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 input schema already describes the sole parameter (userId) as 'Okta user id to look up'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

  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 explicitly states the verb 'look up' and resource 'Okta user by id', clearly differentiating it from sibling tools which are all mutation operations (deactivate, grant, provision, revoke). It also specifies the result format, adding completeness.

  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?

  While no explicit when/when-not guidance is given, the sibling tool context makes it clear this is the read-only lookup tool. The description is straightforward and implies use when a user's ID is known. A slight deduction for not explicitly listing alternatives.

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

• revoke_accessA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description discloses key behavior: it is a non-executing request that requires approval. Additional details like follow-up actions or prerequisites are missing, but the core behavioral trait is clear.

  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 efficiently convey purpose and key behavioral constraint with no redundant information.

  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 low complexity (3 required params, no nested objects, no output schema), the description covers purpose and behavior adequately. It lacks mention of return values or prerequisites, but these are not critical for a simple request tool.

  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% with basic parameter descriptions. The tool description adds context ('group membership', 'Tier 3') but does not enhance understanding of individual parameters beyond what the schema provides.

  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 requests revocation of group membership and contrasts with sibling tools like grant_access by specifying it creates a pending approval without immediate execution.

  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 notes the tool creates a pending approval and does not execute, providing context for use in approval workflows, but does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives like immediate revocation methods.

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