Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• schedule_postA
  3.7/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It conveys that this is a scheduling/write operation but does not disclose return values, failure behavior, confirmation of the scheduled post, permissions, or other side effects. The prerequisite note is helpful but insufficient for full transparency.

  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 sentences with no filler. The purpose is front-loaded, followed by the key prerequisite and multi-account behavior. Every sentence contributes useful information.

  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 schema plus prerequisite guidance cover the main invocation steps, and the description explains the multi-account pattern. However, for a mutating scheduling tool with no output schema or annotations, it would benefit from saying what a successful call returns or how scheduling is confirmed.

  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 already documents all four parameters. The description adds value by clarifying that socialAccountId must come from list_connected_accounts and that each call targets one account, but it adds no extra meaning for content, mediaUrl, or scheduledFor 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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Schedule a post to one connected social account.' It clearly states the scope (one account per call) and is easily distinguished from sibling tools like list_scheduled_posts, delete_scheduled_post, and get_analytics_summary.

  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?

  It gives explicit guidance to call list_connected_accounts first to obtain a valid socialAccountId, and explains how to handle multiple platforms by calling this tool once per account. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when not to use it, but the context is clear.

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

• get_analytics_summaryA
  3.8/5.0
  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 the kind of data returned and includes a caveat about platform-specific engagement fields, but it does not explicitly state side-effect status, data window boundaries, or any operational limitations beyond the input parameter.

  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 entire meaning is packed into one efficient sentence with no filler. The parenthetical 'where each platform exposes them' earns its place by preventing an incorrect assumption about engagement metrics.

  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 read-only summary tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the main return facets without requiring an output schema. It could be slightly more explicit about aggregation semantics, but nothing critical is missing for basic 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?

  Schema description coverage is 100%, and the `days` parameter is already documented with type, range, and default. The description adds only the phrase 'recent window,' which aligns with but does not enrich the schema, so the 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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('analytics summary') and enumerates the exact content: post counts, verified-live rate, per-platform breakdown, and engagement totals. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_mentions and list_connected_accounts.

  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 when to use the tool—when an analytics summary is needed—but gives no explicit guidance about alternatives or when not to use it. Siblings like get_mentions and schedule_post exist, yet no routing or exclusion criteria are mentioned.

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

• get_mentionsA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  The description adds the key limitation that only Facebook, Instagram, Mastodon, Bluesky, and YouTube support comment reading, which is useful behavioral context. With no annotations provided, though, it omits return format, pagination, and how 'recent' is defined, so the agent is partly in the dark.

  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?

  One tightly written sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, with the platform list appended as a clarifying qualifier. No filler or redundancy.

  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 zero-parameter retrieval tool, the description covers what is returned and from which platforms, but it leaves 'this account' and 'recent' undefined and provides no output shape. Given the absence of an output schema, a little more detail about the result form would make it complete.

  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 has zero properties and 100% coverage, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The description's account scope is contextual rather than a parameter, and it needs no additional schema details.

  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 uses a specific verb ('Get'), a clear resource ('recent comments on this account's posts'), and names the five supported platforms. This operation is plainly distinct from sibling tools like list_connected_accounts and get_analytics_summary, so an agent can identify it by intent.

  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?

  It specifies the contextual trigger (wanting recent comments) and the platform limitation (only those supporting comments). However, it does not state when not to use it or name an alternative, leaving sibling selection entirely implicit.

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

• delete_scheduled_postA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Annotations are absent, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that already-sent posts are unaffected, which is a non-obvious behavior. However, it does not mention whether cancellation is irreversible, what response/error is returned, or any authorization requirements, so transparency is partial rather than complete.

  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 with no filler. The main action is front-loaded, and the key caveat about already-sent posts follows immediately. Every sentence earns its place.

  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 one-parameter cancel operation, the description is largely sufficient: it defines the target state (pending) and the no-op condition (already gone out). Minor gaps like return behavior or permissions exist, but the tool's simplicity means these are unlikely to block correct 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 schema coverage is 100%: the only parameter, id, is already described as 'The scheduled post id, from list_scheduled_posts'. The description adds no parameter-level details beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline but does not add extra value.

  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 uses a specific verb ('Cancel') with a clear resource ('pending scheduled post') and a temporal condition ('before it goes out'). It clearly distinguishes itself from publish/read tools in the sibling set, and the 'no effect on a post that's already gone out' clause removes ambiguity about scope.

  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 states when the tool applies: canceling a scheduled post that has not yet gone out. It also gives an explicit exclusion: it has no effect on posts already sent. It does not name alternatives directly, but the timing constraint and id source in the schema make the intended use clear.

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

• list_scheduled_postsA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does convey the read-oriented nature ('List'), the scope ('this account's'), the time window ('upcoming and recent'), and the result attributes (status, Proof-of-Publish verification). However, it does not explicitly confirm non-mutation, authorization needs, or ordering/pagination behavior.

  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, front-loaded sentence that leads with the core action and resource, then packs in the important result details (statuses and Proof-of-Publish verification). There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary context.

  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 has no parameters and no output schema, the description supplies enough to call it correctly: it names the resource, the account scope, the time window, and the key statuses. Minor ambiguity remains around what 'Proof-of-Publish verification' concretely means and what fields are returned, but this is a small gap for such a simple listing 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 has zero properties, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to add. The baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on what the tool returns rather than input fields.

  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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'List this account's upcoming and recent posts' and enumerates the key output dimensions (status and Proof-of-Publish verification). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like schedule_post and delete_scheduled_post, which are mutations, and from list_connected_accounts, which targets a different resource.

  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 provides clear context for when the tool is appropriate: whenever an agent needs this account's upcoming or recent scheduled posts with their statuses. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the scope ('this account's') and resource ('posts') make the intended use obvious next to its siblings.

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

• list_connected_accountsA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It states this is a read-only listing, scopes the data to accounts connected to the LazyRelay account, and discloses the output fields (platform, display name, id). It does not discuss auth or errors, but the read-only nature is explicit through the verb 'List' and the output description.

  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?

  One sentence contains the action, scope, output contents, and a cross-reference to schedule_post with no filler. The most important information is front-loaded.

  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 no-parameter listing tool, the description is complete: it specifies what is listed, the account scope, and the fields returned. No output schema or annotations are needed to call this tool correctly.

  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?

  There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds meaningful semantics by explaining that one returned field is the id required by schedule_post, which helps the agent understand the purpose of the output even though no input parameter needs explanation.

  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 uses the specific verb 'List' with the resource 'every social media account connected to this LazyRelay account', and it names the returned fields. This makes it impossible to confuse with sibling tools like list_scheduled_posts or schedule_post.

  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 phrase 'the id needed by schedule_post' clearly signals one main use case: retrieving account IDs before scheduling. It does not explicitly name when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the context is clear.

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