Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• governance_modelA
  3.7/5.0
  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 disclosure burden. It does convey that the tool is non-mutating and informational via the verb 'Explain' and tightly constrains the content to five governance aspects. It does not, however, disclose output form, depth, or whether the explanation is static or generated, leaving some behavioral ambiguity for a no-annotation tool.

  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?

  A single sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then uses a colon to introduce a tight list of the five covered topics. There is no fluff, and every word contributes to scoping the tool's behavior.

  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 zero-parameter informational tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it specifies exactly which aspects the explanation should cover, which is enough for an agent to invoke it correctly. The only minor gap is that the response format is not described, but 'Explain' strongly implies prose, so this is a small omission.

  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 is empty with additionalProperties set to false, so there are zero parameters to document. Per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, this dimension is satisfied; the description has no parameter burden to carry.

  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 uses a specific verb ('Explain') and a precise resource ('the server's governance-first design'), then enumerates five concrete subtopics: delegated auth, least privilege, auditing, oversharing/sensitivity awareness, and local-only operation. This makes the purpose unmistakable even against siblings 'search' and 'about', though it stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with those siblings.

  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?

  There is no explicit when-to-use versus when-not-to-use guidance or named alternatives. However, the enumerated governance topics make the intended invocation context inferable: an agent can reasonably choose this tool when a user asks about the server's auth, privilege, audit, or privacy design. This is implied usage rather than stated guidance.

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

• searchA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that results are security-trimmed to the signed-in user and that authentication via device code occurs on first use. It does not mention rate limits or result format, but for a search tool the disclosed behavior is substantial.

  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 precise sentences with no filler. The core action and resource scope are front-loaded, followed by security and authentication notes. 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 two-parameter search tool with no nested objects and no output schema, the description provides enough context to invoke it correctly: content scope, authorization behavior, and authentication side effect. It does not specify the exact result shape, but that is not required here.

  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%: both 'query' and 'size' have clear type and description in the schema. The description adds broader context about scope and security but does not add meaning to individual parameters beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 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 names a specific verb ('Search'), a concrete resource ('Microsoft 365 content'), and narrows that to 'SharePoint/OneDrive files and list items.' This clearly distinguishes the operation from the sibling tools 'about' and 'governance_model.'

  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 clearly communicates the intended context: searching Microsoft 365 content as the signed-in user. It does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool or name alternatives, but the focus on security-trimmed M365 search makes the usage context obvious.

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

• aboutA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description bears the full burden. It discloses the kind of information returned (purpose, version, status, how it runs) and implies a read-only, non-destructive operation. While it doesn't detail response formatting, that is not critical for an about tool.

  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 concise, front-loaded sentence that contains no filler. It efficiently enumerates the aspects of the server that will be described without redundant wording.

  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 parameterless introspection tool, the description fully covers what the tool does and what it reports. No output schema exists, but the listed items (purpose, version, status, how it runs) suffice for an agent to understand the expected return. There is no missing context needed to invoke it 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?

  The tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description does not need to explain parameters, and none are present. Baseline of 4 applies for parameter-free 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 uses a specific verb ('Describe') and resource ('this MCP server'), and elaborates on the content (purpose, version, status, how it runs). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'search' and 'governance_model'.

  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 makes the usage context explicit: it is for describing the server's metadata. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, but the distinct purpose of an 'about' tool makes exclusions unnecessary. Since there are siblings, a more explicit 'use this when...' would have earned a 5, but a 4 is appropriate.

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