Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• export_diagramA
  3.7/5.0
  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 only states the export action without disclosing whether existing files are overwritten, if a session is required, or how errors are handled. This is a significant gap for a write operation.

  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, front-loaded sentence with no fluff. It efficiently conveys the action and target format, making it concise and well-structured.

  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 simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. However, it assumes the existence of a 'current diagram' without stating prerequisites like an active session or open diagram, leaving some context incomplete.

  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 coverage is 100% for the single 'path' parameter, which includes a clear description and example. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

  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 exports the current diagram to a .drawio file, specifying the verb and resource. It is distinct from siblings like start_session, create_new_diagram, edit_diagram, and get_diagram, which cover session management and diagram CRUD operations.

  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 implies clear usage context: use when you need to save the current diagram as a .drawio file. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, such as when trying to load a diagram (which would use get_diagram).

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

• start_sessionA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses key traits: starts an embedded server, opens a browser window, and shows live diagram updates. However, it omits lifecycle details like how to stop the session and what happens to the server afterwards, and does not mention the return value.

  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 three sentences, front-loaded with the primary action. Each sentence adds a distinct piece of useful information: the session start, the embedded server/browser, and the real-time update behavior. No redundant or unnecessary text.

  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 description accurately explains what happens during the session but leaves gaps around the return value (e.g., session ID or URL) and session termination/cleanup. Given the lack of an output schema and annotations, these omissions mean an agent may not know what to expect back or how to manage the session lifecycle. Adequate for a simple tool but with clear gaps.

  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 the baseline score is 4. The description adds context about the session's behavior but no parameter-specific details are needed since there are none.

  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 specifies the action 'Start a new diagram session' and the key feature 'real-time preview', distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_new_diagram or export_diagram. The mention of an embedded server and browser window adds specific context that clearly identifies this as a session-launching tool.

  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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not reference sibling tools, state prerequisites, or mention when not to use it. The usage context is implied (when real-time preview is needed) but never explicit.

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

• get_diagramA
  4.7/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses that the tool fetches the latest state from the browser, includes manual edits, and that the output contains cell IDs and structure. However, it doesn't mention potential prerequisites (e.g., active session) or error behavior, which would make it more complete.

  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 concise, consisting of two purposeful sentences. The first sentence states the primary function and an important behavioral detail, while the second gives a targeted usage instruction. No wasted 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?

  For a zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is exceptionally complete. It explains what the tool returns (diagram XML), the freshness guarantee (latest from browser, manual edits), and when to call it relative to edit_diagram. The only minor omission is potential session requirements, but this is not critical given the simplicity.

  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 the schema is trivially 100% covered. The description adds value by explaining what the output contains (XML with cell IDs and structure), which helps the agent understand the result even though there are no inputs to clarify.

  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's purpose: 'Get the current diagram XML.' It specifically distinguishes this from sibling tools like edit_diagram by emphasizing it fetches the latest state including manual edits, which is a unique read-only function.

  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?

  It provides explicit usage guidance: 'Call this BEFORE edit_diagram if you need to update or delete existing elements, so you can see the current cell IDs and structure.' This tells the agent exactly when to use this tool relative to an alternative.

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

• create_new_diagramA
  5/5.0
  Behavior5/5

  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 clearly states that the tool replaces the current diagram entirely and requires the xml argument in every call. It also discloses layout constraints, ID conventions, and edge routing rules, which are critical behavioral details for the agent to invoke correctly.

  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?

  Despite length, the description is well-structured with clear headers (When to use, XML Format, Layout Constraints, Edge Routing, Common Styles) and critical content front-loaded with a CRITICAL warning. Every section earns its place, providing necessary detail for correct usage.

  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?

  The tool has high complexity (mxGraphModel XML, layout rules, edge routing), and the description covers all these aspects comprehensively. It provides a full XML example, constraints, styles, and even routing logic. While there is no output schema or return value description, for a create operation this is sufficient. It fully enables an agent to use the tool correctly.

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

  Parameters5/5

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

  Although schema coverage is 100% for the xml parameter, the description goes far beyond the schema by providing a complete mxGraphModel XML example, mandatory argument warning, and detailed layout/edge/styling constraints. This adds substantial meaning that the schema alone does not convey.

  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 opens with a clear verb+resource: "Create a NEW diagram from mxGraphModel XML." It explicitly distinguishes from edit_diagram by stating this tool is for creating from scratch or replacing entirely, versus small modifications. This directly addresses sibling differentiation.

  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 has explicit "When to use" and "When to use edit_diagram instead" sections. It provides concrete use cases (creating new, replacing, major structural changes) and explicitly names the alternative tool for smaller edits. This is exemplary guidance.

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

• edit_diagramA
  5/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full transparency burden. It discloses a critical behavioral trait: skipping get_diagram WILL cause user's changes to be LOST. It also explains that new_xml must be a complete mxCell element including mxGeometry, and clarifies requirements for each operation (e.g., delete only needs cell_id). This goes beyond the schema and provides essential side-effect awareness.

  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 well-structured with clear sections: warning, workflow, operations, and examples. Despite its length, every part contributes necessary information—no filler or redundancy. The warning is prominent, and the examples are efficient.

  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 complexity (three operations, XML structure, prerequisite dependency), the description is thoroughly complete. It covers the required get_diagram call, operation semantics, exact XML format, and illustrative examples. No output schema exists, but for a mutation tool the return value is not essential; the description fully equips 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.

  Parameters5/5

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

  Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds substantial meaning: it explains the three operation enum values, that new_xml is required for add/update, that cell_id must be unique for add, and provides full valid XML examples. This goes well beyond the schema's bare property descriptions and gives the agent precise construction guidance.

  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 opens with a specific verb+resource+scope: 'Edit the current diagram by ID-based operations (update/add/delete cells).' It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on the current diagram and the ID-based nature, while get_diagram is for fetching and create_new_diagram for creating new diagrams.

  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 explicitly states a mandatory prerequisite: '⚠️ REQUIRED: You MUST call get_diagram BEFORE this tool!' and provides a step-by-step workflow. It also includes detailed operation semantics and three concrete examples covering each operation type, making usage conditions explicit and actionable.

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