Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• list_api_endpointsC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a listing operation but doesn't describe what the output looks like (e.g., format, pagination), whether it's read-only, or any rate limits or authentication requirements. The description is minimal and lacks essential behavioral context.

  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 with zero waste. It's appropriately sized for a straightforward listing tool and front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration.

  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?

  Given the tool's complexity (6 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the output format, prerequisites (e.g., needing a loaded spec), or how filtering parameters interact. For a tool with multiple filtering options and no structured output documentation, more context is needed.

  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 6 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond implying filtering capabilities through 'from the currently loaded OpenAPI document.' This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

  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 action ('List endpoints') and resource ('from the currently loaded OpenAPI document'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_endpoint_contract' or 'propose_new_endpoint', which might have overlapping domains.

  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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (like needing to load an OpenAPI spec first), nor does it contrast with siblings like 'get_endpoint_contract' for detailed endpoint information or 'list_backends' for backend management.

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

• list_backendsB
  3.1/5.0
  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. It states the action ('List') but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it's read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the output format might be. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

  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 that front-loads the key information ('List configured backend targets') without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool with no parameters.

  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?

  Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., list format, data structure) or behavioral aspects, which is insufficient for a tool that might be used in a workflow with siblings like 'generate_typescript_dto'.

  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 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description adds context by specifying 'configured backend targets available for OpenAPI tools,' which provides meaning beyond the empty schema, earning a baseline score above 3 for compensating with useful context.

  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 verb ('List') and resource ('configured backend targets'), making the purpose evident. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_api_endpoints' or 'load_openapi_spec', which might also list related resources, so it lacks sibling differentiation for a perfect score.

  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. It doesn't mention context, prerequisites, or exclusions, such as whether it should be used before selecting a backend for other operations or how it relates to siblings like 'list_api_endpoints'.

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

• propose_new_endpointB
  3.1/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'best-effort' which hints at non-guaranteed results, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only analysis or actually modifies the backend, what 'proposal' entails (e.g., returns structured data, generates code), error handling, or any rate limits. For a tool with no annotations and potentially complex behavior, this is a significant gap.

  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?

  The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary details. It avoids repetition of parameter info already in the schema. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating endpoint and DTO aspects, but overall it's appropriately sized with zero waste.

  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?

  Given no annotations, no output schema, and a tool that likely involves complex proposal generation (implied by 'best-effort' and pattern analysis), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the output looks like (e.g., a JSON proposal, code snippets), success/failure conditions, or how it interfaces with the backend. For a 6-parameter tool with no structured output documentation, this leaves too many gaps for effective agent 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 6 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't explain how parameters interact (e.g., backendId's role) or clarify semantics like 'deterministic patterns.' With high schema coverage, the baseline 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

  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 creates a 'best-effort endpoint + DTO proposal' based on patterns in an OpenAPI spec, specifying both the action (create proposal) and resource (endpoint/DTO). It distinguishes from siblings like list_backends or get_endpoint_contract by focusing on proposal generation rather than listing or retrieving existing data. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with generate_typescript_dto, which might have overlapping DTO-related functionality.

  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 when needing to propose new endpoints aligned with existing patterns, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this vs. alternatives like generate_typescript_dto or get_endpoint_contract. It mentions 'deterministic patterns found in the current OpenAPI spec' which suggests context, but lacks clear when/when-not rules or prerequisites beyond what the parameters imply.

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

• generate_typescript_dtoB
  3.4/5.0
  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 generating DTOs and including nested types, but fails to describe critical behaviors such as error handling, output format, or any constraints like rate limits or authentication needs. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool operates beyond its basic purpose.

  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 and key feature (including nested DTOs). It is front-loaded with the main action and avoids unnecessary details, making it easy to understand quickly without wasted words.

  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?

  Given the tool's complexity (generating code from OpenAPI schemas) and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what the output looks like, how errors are handled, or any dependencies on other tools like 'list_backends'. This leaves the agent with incomplete information for effective tool 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%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description does not add any meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining relationships between parameters or usage nuances. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description does not compensate but also does not detract.

  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 specific action ('Generate TypeScript DTO type declarations') and the source ('from OpenAPI components schema'), with additional detail about including referenced nested DTO types. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'list_backends' or 'load_openapi_spec' by focusing on code generation rather than listing or loading operations.

  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 when TypeScript DTOs are needed from OpenAPI schemas, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_endpoint_contract' or 'propose_new_endpoint'. No guidance is provided on prerequisites or exclusions, leaving usage context inferred rather than clearly defined.

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

• get_endpoint_contractA
  3.5/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states what information is returned, not behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, performance characteristics, error conditions, or authentication requirements. It doesn't disclose if this makes network calls, has rate limits, or what happens with invalid inputs.

  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 efficiently conveys the tool's purpose with zero waste. Every word earns its place by specifying exactly what's returned. The structure is front-loaded with the main action and resource.

  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 tool with 4 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but lacks context about the return format (structure of the contract), error handling, or how it relates to sibling tools. It states what information is returned but not in what format or with what limitations.

  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 4 parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific meaning beyond what's in the schema descriptions (backendId from list_backends, exact path format, HTTP method enum, optional specUrl). Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

  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 specific action ('Return full contract') and resource ('for one endpoint'), listing the exact components returned (params, request schema, response schema, DTO names). It distinguishes from siblings like list_api_endpoints (which lists endpoints) or load_openapi_spec (which loads full specs).

  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 when detailed endpoint information is needed, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like load_openapi_spec or propose_new_endpoint. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, though the required parameters suggest it's for retrieving specific endpoint details.

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

• load_openapi_specA
  4.1/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions caching behavior ('Bypass in-memory cache when true' is implied through the forceRefresh parameter context) and the tool's role in system recovery, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or what 'load or refresh' actually entails operationally.

  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 perfectly concise with two sentences that each earn their place: the first states the core functionality, the second provides crucial usage guidance. It's front-loaded with the essential action and wastes no 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 annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate context for a tool with 3 parameters and 100% schema coverage. It explains the tool's purpose and when to use it, but doesn't address what happens after loading (e.g., how other tools are affected) or potential side effects, which would be helpful given the system-impacting nature suggested by the description.

  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 fully documents all three parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema descriptions (backendId from list_backends, optional URL override, cache bypass). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

  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 specific action ('Load or refresh') and resource ('OpenAPI spec from a URL'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_backends or get_endpoint_contract. It explicitly mentions the primary use case for initialization or recovery when 'tools fail because docs path changed'.

  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?

  The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('Use this first if tools fail because docs path changed'), establishing it as an initialization or recovery step. It implies alternatives by referencing potential tool failures, though it doesn't name specific sibling tools as direct alternatives.

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