Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• list_recent_notesA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=true. The description adds that it returns summaries and suggests get_note for full notes, but no additional behavioral traits like pagination or auth needs.

  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 concise lines with no fluff. First line states purpose, second adds useful context about summaries and alternative.

  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?

  For a simple list tool with 1 parameter and output schema, the description covers essentials. Minor gap: no mention of summary format, but overall sufficient.

  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 clear description for limit parameter. The description provides no additional meaning beyond the 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?

  The description clearly states the verb (list), resource (recent notes), and ordering (newest first). It distinguishes from siblings like search_notes and get_note.

  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 using get_note for full content but does not explicitly when to use this versus alternatives like search_notes. No exclusion criteria.

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

• delete_noteA
  4.1/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already provide destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds 'This cannot be undone' and 'Returns a confirmation with the deleted note's title', providing behavioral context beyond annotations.

  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 consists of two short, front-loaded sentences. The first states the primary action, the second adds critical side effect and return info. No unnecessary words.

  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 (one required parameter), the presence of annotations, and the mention of return confirmation, the description fully covers necessary context for an agent to use it correctly.

  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% with the parameter 'note_id' described as 'ID of the note to delete.' The description merely says 'by ID', adding no additional semantics beyond the 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?

  The description states 'Permanently delete a note by ID', clearly indicating the verb (delete), resource (note), and method (by ID). It distinguishes from sibling tools like add, get, list, search, and update.

  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 deletion but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor when not to use it. It mentions irreversibility but lacks direct comparison to siblings.

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

• add_noteA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations correctly indicate non-read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by explaining the return behavior (stored note with assigned ID), which aids the 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and contains no unnecessary words. Every sentence provides essential information.

  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 presence of an output schema and comprehensive parameter descriptions, the description is complete. It explains the purpose, return value, and hint for future usage, fulfilling all requirements for a creation 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% and already describes all parameters clearly. The description adds no additional semantic meaning for parameters beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 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 'Create a new note with a title, body, and optional tags.' It uses a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('note'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like delete, update, and list.

  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 advises referencing the returned ID for later get/update/delete calls, setting clear usage context. It implies when to use the tool (to create a note) but does not explicitly mention when to avoid it.

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

• search_notesA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations indicate read-only (readOnlyHint=true) and non-open world. The description adds that results are summaries ordered newest-first, which is beyond annotations. No contradictions.

  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, no fluff, key information front-loaded. Every sentence adds value.

  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?

  With an output schema present, the description covers result format and ordering, plus links to get_note. It is thorough for a search tool with simple parameters.

  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 100% with individual parameter descriptions. The description adds the AND combination logic for query and tag, which is not fully captured in the schema. This provides added meaning.

  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 action (search) and resource (notes), specifies filtering options (keyword, tag, both with AND), and distinguishes from sibling tools like get_note and list_recent_notes.

  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 explains how filters combine and directs users to get_note for full body, providing clear context for when to use this tool vs. alternatives. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or other siblings, but the guidance is sufficient.

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

• update_noteA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already indicate destructiveness; the description adds behavioral details: partial update semantics and tag set replacement. It also confirms the return of the updated note.

  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 sentences, front-loading purpose and then adding key behavioral notes. No extraneous 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 output schema exists and annotations cover destructiveness, the description adequately explains the update behavior. It could mention error conditions but is sufficient for a simple update tool.

  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 full schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining partial update behavior and tag replacement, which the schema descriptions do not convey.

  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 edits an existing note's title, body, and/or tags. This specific verb+resource combination differentiates it from sibling tools like add_note (create) and delete_note (remove).

  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 implies use for modifying existing notes but does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to alternatives. However, the context of editing vs creating is clear from the wording.

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

• get_noteA
  4.8/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true. Description adds behavioral details: conflict resolution (note_id wins), case-insensitive title matching, and fallback to most recent if multiple same title. Could mention error handling (e.g., 404 if not found) but output schema might cover that.

  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 short sentences plus a bullet. Front-loaded with main action. Every sentence adds value: retrieval method, parameter precedence, fuzzy alternative. No wasted words.

  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 get-by-id/title tool, description covers purpose, parameter disambiguation, and when to use sibling tool. Output schema exists, so return format is documented elsewhere. Complete and self-contained.

  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?

  Schema coverage is 100%, but description adds meaning beyond schema: note_id wins if both given, title is case-insensitive, and if multiple notes share title, most recently updated is returned. These enrich what the schema alone 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?

  Description clearly states 'Retrieve a single note by its ID or exact title' with specific verb and resource. Distinguishes from sibling search_notes by mentioning 'fuzzy matching' and from list_recent_notes by indicating single retrieval.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines5/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  Explicitly provides when to use: 'Provide note_id OR title (note_id wins if both given)'. Also advises alternative: 'Use search_notes for fuzzy matching'. No other sibling tools are appropriate for this exact retrieval.

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