Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• healthB
  3.2/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool returns server status, implying a read-only operation, but does not specify whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, or details about the response format. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the basic function.

  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, efficient sentence: 'Retorna o status do servidor MCP.' It is front-loaded with the core function, has zero wasted words, and is appropriately sized for a simple tool. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to understanding the tool's purpose.

  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 the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is adequate but has gaps. It explains what the tool does but lacks details on behavioral aspects like authentication or response format. For a status-checking tool, this is minimally viable but could be more informative about the returned data or usage constraints.

  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 0 parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100% (though empty). The description does not need to add parameter semantics, as there are no inputs to explain. This meets the baseline expectation for tools without parameters, but since it doesn't explicitly state 'no parameters required,' it falls slightly short of a perfect score.

  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's purpose: 'Retorna o status do servidor MCP' (Returns the server MCP status). It uses a specific verb ('retorna') and resource ('status do servidor MCP'), making the function unambiguous. However, since there are no sibling tools, it cannot demonstrate differentiation from alternatives, preventing a perfect score of 5.

  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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites, or context. It simply states what the tool does without indicating scenarios for its application. Since there are no sibling tools, the lack of explicit when/when-not guidance is less critical but still results in minimal guidance.

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