Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• test_integrationC
  2.7/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It only says 'Run npm script', but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as side effects, prerequisites, or failure modes. This is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's impact.

  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 a single concise sentence that effectively conveys the core action. It is front-loaded and free of extraneous information, though slightly more detail could be added without harming conciseness.

  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?

  Given the lack of output schema and the simple parameters, the description is minimal. It fails to explain expected outputs or results of running the script, leaving the agent with incomplete context for a test tool.

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

  Parameters2/5

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

  Schema description coverage is 50%; the 'args' parameter has a description, but the '_' parameter lacks one. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, and it does not compensate for the missing schema documentation.

  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 runs the npm script 'test:integration' and specifies the command. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling 'test' tool, although the tool name implies a specific integration test.

  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 is provided on when to use this tool versus siblings like 'test' or 'build'. The description only states what it does, leaving the agent without context for selection.

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

• prepublishonlyC
  2.9/5.0
  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 only states it runs the script, but does not disclose potential side effects, permission requirements, or error behavior. For a script runner, more detail on process and outcomes is needed.

  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 directly states the action. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the key information. No unnecessary text.

  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?

  The description is very minimal. It does not explain the npm lifecycle context (prepublishOnly runs before publish) or how it differs from a plain build. With no output schema and sibling tools, it should provide more context for agent decision-making.

  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 50% (args has description, _ does not). The tool description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond what is already in the schema for 'args'. No additional clarity on parameters is provided.

  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 runs the npm script 'prepublishOnly' which executes 'npm run build'. It identifies the specific script, but lacks distinction from the sibling 'build' tool, which might run build directly. Still, it is specific enough for basic understanding.

  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?

  There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'build' or 'test'. It does not mention that it is typically executed before publishing or that it is part of the npm lifecycle. The description only states what it does, not when to use it.

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

• buildB
  3.1/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only repeats the command, omitting details like side effects (e.g., file modifications), failure modes, or idempotency. The minimal information ('node scripts/build.cjs') fails to convey the tool's impact beyond execution.

  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, concise sentence that directly states the tool's action and underlying command. It has no wasted words and is front-loaded with the key information. Every part earns its place.

  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?

  Given the tool's simplicity and lack of output schema, the description should still cover prerequisites, consequences (e.g., builds project), and error handling. It only states the command, leaving the agent uninformed about the tool's full role in the build process.

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

  Parameters2/5

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

  Schema description coverage is 50% (only 'args' has a description). The tool description does not explain the '_' parameter (array of strings appended to the script) or elaborate on 'args' usage. It adds no meaning beyond the existing schema description, failing to compensate for the low coverage.

  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 action ('Run npm script') and the target resource ('build'), specifying the exact command 'node scripts/build.cjs'. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools (prepublishonly, start, test, test_integration) by referencing the specific npm script name.

  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 is provided on when to use this tool versus siblings, nor any prerequisites, alternatives, or when not to use it. The description is purely functional without contextual usage instructions.

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

• startB
  3.1/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  Does not disclose side effects, permissions, or potential destructive actions. Annotations absent, so description should cover behavior but only states the command.

  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?

  Very concise, single sentence. Could be improved with structure but is 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?

  Missing details about return value, error handling, or execution context. For a simple script runner, it's borderline adequate.

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

  Parameters2/5

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

  Schema coverage is low (50%), and description does not explain the '_' parameter. Only provides minimal info for 'args'. Fails to compensate for missing schema documentation.

  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 the tool runs the npm start script, specifying the exact command. Distinguishes from siblings by naming the specific script.

  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 alternatives like build or test. No context provided.

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

• testB
  3.2/5.0
  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 does reveal the exact commands run and the expected success message, but does not disclose any side effects (e.g., whether tests modify data or make network requests).

  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 a single sentence that efficiently conveys the command to run. It is concise but could be more structured by separating the explanation of the tool from the literal command.

  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?

  The tool is simple with no output schema and two parameters. The description covers the basic behavior (running the npm test script) but omits any explanation of what the test does or what the expected output is beyond the success message.

  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 50%. The description adds meaning for 'args' by stating it is appended after '--', but the '_' parameter has no description in either the schema or the description. The description partially compensates for the missing schema descriptions.

  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 that the tool runs the npm 'test' script and provides the exact command executed. However, it does not distinguish this from the sibling tool 'test_integration', which likely has overlapping functionality.

  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 is provided on when to use this tool versus the siblings 'build', 'start', or 'test_integration'. The description lacks any context about appropriate use cases or alternatives.

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