Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• firefly_executeC
  2.6/5.0
  Behavior1/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral transparency. It only states that it executes operations dynamically but does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether it creates, updates, or deletes data), error handling behavior, rate limits, or authentication requirements. This is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's impact.

  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 concise, with a clear Purpose line followed by an Args section. It avoids verbosity and front-loads the purpose. However, it could be slightly more informative without increasing length significantly, e.g., by referencing sibling tools.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness1/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the tool's dynamic nature and lack of output schema or annotations, the description is highly incomplete. It does not specify the return format, error messages, or how to discover valid entity-operation combinations. With sibling tools like 'firefly_list_operations' available, it should cross-reference them for completeness.

  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?

  The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains each parameter: entity as a type (e.g., account, transaction), operation as an action (list, get, create, etc.), and params as a dictionary. While this adds some context beyond raw schema, it remains vague with 'etc.' and does not enumerate all valid values, which could lead to incorrect usage.

  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's purpose: executing Firefly III operations dynamically. It specifies the verb 'execute' and the resource 'Firefly III operation', making it distinct from sibling tools like 'firefly_get_schema' and 'firefly_list_operations' which are about metadata retrieval. However, it lacks specificity about which operations are supported, leaving some ambiguity.

  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 like 'firefly_list_operations' or 'firefly_get_schema'. It does not mention prerequisites, such as needing to first list operations with 'firefly_list_operations' or that this tool assumes the user knows valid entity-operation pairs.

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

• get_versionB
  3/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, and the description only states 'get the version', implying a read operation. It does not disclose any behavioral traits such as idempotency, cost, or side effects, leaving the agent to assume minimal behavior.

  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 with 10 words, containing no redundant information. It is front-loaded with the key 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?

  The tool is simple (get version) and has an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. However, the lack of parameter documentation makes it incomplete for an agent that may need to understand the optional parameter.

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

  Parameters1/5

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

  The input schema has one optional parameter 'random_string' with a default, but the description does not mention this parameter or explain its purpose. With 0% schema description coverage, the agent has no guidance on how to use the parameter.

  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 'Get the version of the Firefly MCP server' clearly states the action (get) and the resource (version of Firefly MCP server). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like echo or firefly_execute, which serve different purposes.

  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 does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual cues for usage.

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

• firefly_list_operationsB
  3.3/5.0
  Behavior2/5

  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 only states that the tool lists operations with an optional entity filter, but omits details like whether the list is filtered by permissions, the nature of operations (e.g., predefined or user-specific), or any side effects. The description fails to add behavioral context beyond the basic functionality.

  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 extremely concise with two short sentences. The main purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the parameter description follows logically. No unnecessary words are present; every part earns its place.

  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 tool has an output schema (not shown), the description doesn't need to detail return values. The tool is simple with one optional parameter. However, the description lacks details about the entity filter's format and what 'operations' entails, which could leave the agent uncertain about how to use it effectively.

  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?

  The description adds some meaning to the single parameter 'entity' by mentioning it as an optional filter with examples ('account, transaction, etc.'). However, schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate more. The examples are vague and lack specificity, leaving interpretation open.

  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 'list' and the resource 'all available Firefly III operations', which directly communicates the tool's function. The optional entity filter adds specificity. The purpose is distinct from sibling tools like firefly_execute (which executes an operation) and firefly_get_schema (which retrieves schemas).

  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 or when not to use it. It doesn't mention prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative context despite having sibling tools that could benefit from such clarification.

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

• firefly_get_schemaA
  3.5/5.0
  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 says 'Get parameter schema', implying a read operation, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, or any side effects. Minimal information.

  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 extremely concise, with one line for the purpose and two lines for argument descriptions. It is front-loaded and every sentence adds value without redundancy.

  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 (2 params, no nested objects) and presence of an output schema (not described), the description is adequate but not complete. It does not explain that the output is a schema useful for subsequent calls to firefly_execute, nor does it leverage context from siblings to guide the agent.

  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?

  Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description adds meaningful explanations for both parameters: 'entity: Entity type (account, transaction, etc.)' and 'operation: Operation name (list, get, etc.)'. This provides context beyond the bare schema titles, though examples could be more exhaustive.

  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 'Get parameter schema for a specific operation', specifying the verb ('Get') and resource ('parameter schema'). This distinguishes it from siblings like firefly_execute (executes) and firefly_list_operations (lists operations).

  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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., before calling firefly_execute). The description only lists arguments, lacking context like 'Use this to determine required parameters for an operation before executing it.'

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

• echoA
  3.6/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  The description accurately discloses the tool's behavior (echoing) with no side effects. No annotations exist, so description carries full burden and does so adequately.

  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 earns its place with no wasted words.

  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 the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description provides sufficient context for its purpose and behavior.

  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% and the description does not add meaning beyond the property name 'message'. It fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

  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 echoes a message back, using a specific verb and resource. However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools, but they are unrelated.

  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?

  Usage is implied; no explicit when-to-use or alternatives guidance is provided, but it is straightforward for this simple tool.

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