Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• current_trackA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Given no annotations, the description adds value by disclosing that results are based on MCP-started playback only and manual interaction is excluded. This is a key behavioral trait beyond the empty schema.

  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, front-loaded sentences with no extraneous information. Every word contributes to understanding.

  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 tool has no input schema, no output schema, and no annotations. The description states its purpose and limitation, but does not specify what fields the 'track info' includes, which could help the agent understand the return value.

  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 no parameters and schema coverage is 100%. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description does not need to add parameter info.

  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 it returns currently playing track info, with a specific verb and resource. It implies a read-only status query, but does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'mark_current' or 'play_album'.

  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 checking MCP-driven playback status, and notes that manual browser interaction is not tracked. However, it does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternatives.

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

• play_albumA
  4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description takes on the burden of disclosure. It transparently reveals that the tool searches YouTube for a specific query ('<artist> <album> full album') and opens the top result in Safari. This provides useful behavioral context, though it does not cover edge cases like missing results or errors.

  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 front-loads the purpose and immediately explains the mechanism. Every word serves a purpose, with no redundancy.

  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 tool with no output schema, the description covers the main flow: input, search, and action (open in Safari). It does not address error handling, prerequisites, or return values, but given the tool's simplicity, it is reasonably 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 0% description coverage, so the description adds significant value by explaining how 'artist' and 'album' are used in the YouTube search query. This goes beyond just naming the parameters, though it does not specify input format or constraints.

  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 ('Play an album') and the resources (artist + album name), which distinguishes it from siblings like 'play_station' (station) and 'current_track' (track). The mechanism (YouTube search and Safari open) is also specific.

  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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'play_station'. It only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer usage context without any when-not-to-use or exclusion criteria.

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

• mark_currentA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

  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 side effects: appending to diary, promotions based on thresholds, and override for YouTube parsing. However, it does not mention reversibility or authentication needs, but for a simple reaction tool, this is fairly transparent.

  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 two sentences with no wasted words. All information is relevant and efficiently conveyed.

  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 moderate complexity (5 params, 1 required) and no output schema, the description covers purpose, side effects, and parameter usage. It lacks mention of the return value or error handling, but these are minor omissions for a stamping action.

  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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that artist/album/track override YouTube parsing, but does not clarify the 'note' parameter. The reaction parameter is covered by listing the enum. Overall, it adds value for 3 of 5 parameters but misses one.

  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 verb 'Stamp' and the resource 'currently playing track' with a specific reaction. It distinctly differentiates from sibling tools like current_track, play_album, and play_station, which are for retrieval or playback, while this performs a marking action.

  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 explains when to use this tool (to react to the current track) and provides context about side effects (appending to diary, promoting album card) and parameter overrides. It lacks explicit exclusion of alternatives but still offers solid guidance.

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

• play_stationA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

  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 that it opens the top result in Safari (a side effect) and that it may randomly pick a seed from a specific path. This is good transparency for a non-destructive 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?

  Three sentences, no wasted words. Front-loaded with the core action, then additional details. Very concise and well-structured.

  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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential information: what it does, where it opens, and the fallback mechanism. Missing edge cases (e.g., no stations note) but not critical.

  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 schema already describes the parameter as optional and its fallback. The description adds value by explaining that the fallback picks a random entry from the Obsidian stations note, which goes beyond the schema's 'falls back to stations note'.

  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: starting a YouTube station from an artist or genre seed. It specifies the resource (YouTube station) and distinguishes from siblings like play_album by mentioning it opens the top result in Safari.

  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 explains that the seed is optional and the fallback uses a random entry from a stations note, giving context on when to omit the parameter. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus other siblings, though the behavior is clear enough.

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