Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get_componentB
  3.3/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It only states a read operation ('Get') but does not confirm non-destructive nature or mention any side effects, authentication, or limits. Minimal disclosure.

  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, no unnecessary words. Efficient and to the point.

  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?

  No output schema and only one sentence. Does not describe the return format (e.g., string of source code). Suitable for a simple tool but lacks clarity on what the agent will receive.

  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 description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides for componentName and variant. Baseline 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 tool retrieves the source code for a specific Gluestack UI component. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_component_demo or get_component_metadata by specifying 'source code'.

  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. With siblings like get_component_demo and get_component_metadata, the description should indicate scenarios for each but does not.

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

• get_component_metadataB
  3.3/5.0
  Behavior2/5

  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 only states the tool retrieves metadata, but does not disclose whether it is read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a tool with no 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 is a single, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without unnecessary words.

  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 minimally covers what the tool returns (props, dependencies, examples) but lacks details on output format, error handling, or prerequisites. It is adequate but incomplete.

  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 parameter descriptions for componentName and variant. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so 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?

  Description clearly states the verb 'Get' and resource 'metadata for a specific Gluestack UI component', and specifies what is included (props, dependencies, examples). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_component (likely returns component code) and get_component_demo (returns demo).

  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 get_component or list_components. The description does not mention when-not or provide context for selection beyond the tool's purpose.

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

• get_directory_structureB
  3.3/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations provided; the description does not mention error handling, auth requirements, or response format. It only states the basic function without behavioral details.

  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?

  Single sentence that is front-loaded with purpose. Efficient but could be slightly more structured with separate usage notes.

  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?

  With 3 optional parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal. It lacks details on depth behavior, file inclusion semantics, and error cases, making it incomplete for confident 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?

  Schema covers all 3 parameters with descriptions. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so 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 clearly states it retrieves the directory structure of the Gluestack UI repository, optionally filtered by path. This distinguishes it from sibling tools which deal with components and variants.

  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?

  No explicit guidance on when to use or not, but the context from sibling tool names implies it is for exploring file structure rather than components.

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

• get_component_demoB
  3.4/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations provided, and the description lacks detail on what exactly is returned (e.g., code snippet, file path), side effects, or authorization needs. It only says 'Get demo code', which is insufficient for transparency.

  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?

  Description is a single sentence with no filler, front-loading the purpose. However, it is slightly too concise given the lack of behavioral details.

  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?

  For a simple tool with two well-described parameters and no output schema, the description gives the minimum viable context. It could mention the return format or constraints (e.g., componentName must exist).

  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 already has 100% description coverage for both parameters, including the default for 'variant'. The description adds no new semantic meaning beyond what is in 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?

  Description clearly states the tool retrieves demo code for a Gluestack UI component, specifying the resource (demo code) and purpose (illustrating usage). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_component' which likely gets the component itself.

  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?

  No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_component_metadata' or 'list_component_variants'. The usage context is implied but not stated.

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

• list_component_variantsA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it accurately describes a read-only listing operation, it does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive or that it requires no special permissions. The description is not misleading but adds no extra behavioral context beyond the stated action.

  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 verb and resource, then provides specific details. Every word is informative and there is no redundancy. It is an optimal length for a simple tool.

  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 (single parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is fully complete. It explains the purpose, parameter, and what the output represents (a list of variant names). No additional context is needed for an agent to correctly select and invoke this 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?

  The input schema already describes the parameter componentName with 100% coverage, but the description adds value by providing examples (e.g., 'Button', 'Input', 'Modal') and clarifying that it refers to Gluestack UI components. This extra context helps the agent understand the expected format and domain, going beyond the schema's brief description.

  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 'List', the resource 'all available variants for a specific Gluestack UI component', and even enumerates the variant types (nativewind, themed, unstyled). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like list_components (which lists components) and get_component (which gets component details).

  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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only states what it does, without specifying prerequisites, context where it is appropriate, or when not to use it. For example, it could mention that this tool is useful for discovering available styling variants before using a component.

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

• list_componentsA
  4.2/5.0
  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 that the tool lists all components with variants and features, which is straightforward. However, it does not describe return format, side effects, or other behavioral details beyond the basic listing.

  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 core action. No wasted words.

  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 (no parameters, no output schema), the description is adequate. It covers the purpose and scope (all components with variants and features). Minor gap: could mention if authentication or context is needed, but overall sufficient.

  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?

  The tool has no parameters (schema coverage 100%). The description adds meaning by stating what the listing includes (variants and features), which is a baseline 4 for zero-parameter tools.

  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 'List all available Gluestack UI components with their variants and features', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_component which focuses on a single component, and list_component_variants which lists only variants.

  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 the description implies using this tool to get a comprehensive list of all components, it does not explicitly state when to use alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. The context is clear but lacks explicit guidance.

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