Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• icp_blacklistC
  2.6/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only mentions supported types. It does not disclose authentication needs, rate limits, whether it's a search or match, or behavioral traits like pagination or data recency.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness3/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is concise (one line) and front-loaded with purpose, but it sacrifices necessary detail, making it under-specified rather than efficiently concise.

  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 queries a sensitive blacklist, the description lacks context about usage, return format (though output schema exists), and how parameters affect results. It fails to compensate for the 0% schema coverage.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters2/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema coverage is 0%, yet the description adds no meaning to parameters beyond the supported types hint for the 'type' parameter. 'name' and 'proxy' remain unexplained.

  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 queries the MIIT illegal blacklist, specifying supported types (bweb/bapp/bmapp/bkapp). However, it does not differentiate from sibling icp_query, which likely serves a similar purpose for ICP records.

  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 like icp_query. The description mentions supported types but provides no exclusions or prerequisites.

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

• icp_queryC
  2.7/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations, the description should disclose key behaviors. It only mentions supported types but lacks information on authentication, rate limits, error handling, or result structure. This is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's side effects or constraints.

  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 sentence, concise and front-loaded with the verb 'query'. However, it is under-specified for the tool's complexity; while not verbose, it could be more informative without being lengthy.

  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 has 5 parameters, no schema descriptions, and an output schema, the description is very incomplete. It does not explain pagination, default values, or output format, leaving significant gaps for an agent to use it correctly.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters2/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The input schema has 5 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description only adds context for the 'type' parameter (web/app/mapp/kapp). It fails to explain 'name', 'page', 'proxy', or 'page_size', leaving the agent guessing their purpose.

  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 queries ICP filing information from the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology, and lists supported types (web/app/mapp/kapp). It is specific about the resource and actions, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like icp_blacklist.

  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 implies usage by mentioning supported types, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., icp_blacklist). No context about prerequisites or when not to use it.

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

• check_environmentA
  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 full burden. It mentions checking environment, dependencies, and supported query types, which implies a read-only operation. However, it does not detail any potential side effects or access requirements. The output schema covers return values, mitigating some lack of detail.

  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 concise sentence in Chinese that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. No unnecessary words.

  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 zero parameters, an output schema, and sibling tools, the description provides sufficient information to understand the tool's function. No gaps are evident.

  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 does not need to add parameter info, and it appropriately leaves it out.

  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 checks the Python runtime environment, dependencies, and supported query types for ICPQuery-MCP. It distinguishes itself from siblings like icp_query (querying) and icp_blacklist (blacklist management).

  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. The description does not provide context about prerequisites or scenarios where this tool is appropriate.

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

• config_showA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, and the description does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or non-destructive. It only describes the basic operation, leaving the agent to infer behavioral traits.

  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 sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource, containing no extraneous words. Every word earns its place.

  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 (0 parameters) and the presence of an output schema (though not shown here), the description is complete. It effectively states the tool's function without needing to explain return values.

  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, so the schema coverage is trivially 100%. Per guidelines, baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter info, but none is needed.

  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 ('view') and the resource ('ICP query service configuration'), and the sibling tools (check_environment, icp_blacklist, icp_query) are distinct in function, making the purpose unambiguous.

  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 for viewing configuration but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings or when not to use it. A minimal viable score is appropriate given simplicity.

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