Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• eolink_find_api_by_pathA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it pulls all project APIs server-side and matches, which is useful context. No contradictions, and no missing critical behavior.

  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 well-structured with purpose first, then behavior, then parameters. It is concise but includes necessary examples. Slightly verbose in parameter list but still 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 3 parameters (2 required) and no output schema, the description explains return fields (api_id, api_name, etc.) and suggests next steps. Complete for its complexity and context signals.

  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% (all three parameters described in input schema). The description also provides examples and extra context (e.g., 'user/user/list' with optional leading slash). Baseline score is appropriate as schema already 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 tool's purpose: find APIs by exact path (api_path). It distinguishes itself from eolink_search_apis, which has fuzzy search noise, providing a specific verb+resource combination.

  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?

  Explicitly says when to use this tool: for exact path matching to avoid fuzzy noise. It also mentions an alternative: use eolink_get_api_detail for full definitions after obtaining api_id.

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

• eolink_get_api_detailA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by disclosing the return format (Markdown documentation) and the comprehensive set of returned details, which is beyond what annotations provide.

  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 yet comprehensive. It uses a bullet-like structure to list return components and clearly separates parameter instructions. Every sentence adds value.

  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?

  With no output schema, the description fully explains the return value (Markdown with parameter details). It covers prerequisites, required parameters, and output format, making the tool fully understandable.

  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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds meaningful guidance: it specifies that api_id comes from eolink_search_apis and project_id from eolink_list_projects, enhancing understanding of parameter dependencies.

  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 specifies the exact resource ('单个 HTTP 接口的完整定义') and lists all included components (基础信息、请求头、query 参数等), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like eolink_search_apis which only return a list.

  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 project_id and api_id are required, and tells how to obtain them (via eolink_list_projects and eolink_search_apis). It could be improved by explicitly stating when not to use this tool, but the prerequisites are clear.

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

• eolink_list_groupsA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds return structure details (group_id, group_name, parent_group_id, group_child_list) and hierarchical nature, which annotations don't cover.

  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?

  Concise and well-structured: purpose statement, parameter description, return structure, and typical usage pattern. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

  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 simple tool with one parameter, read-only, and no output schema, the description fully covers purpose, parameter, return format, and usage workflow.

  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?

  Only one parameter project_id with 100% schema coverage. Description adds context on how to obtain it via eolink_list_projects, which is not in the schema.

  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?

  Description clearly states the tool lists all interface groups (including sub-groups) under a project for understanding organizational structure. It distinguishes itself from siblings like eolink_search_apis by specifying its use case.

  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?

  Provides clear context: used after getting project_id via eolink_list_projects, and typical usage to feed group_id into eolink_search_apis. No explicit when-not-to-use, but the read-only nature makes it broadly applicable.

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

• eolink_list_projectsA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it returns project_id, project_name, creator, and archive status, which is useful but not critical for safety. No contradictions.

  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 concise sentences: first states purpose and endpoint, second provides usage guidance. 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?

  Given no parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, return fields, and usage context as a first step. Sibling tools listed. Fully adequate for the tool's 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?

  No parameters exist, and description confirms '不需要参数' (no parameters needed). With 0 parameters and 100% schema coverage, baseline is 4. No additional parameter info 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 tool lists all projects in the current workspace, specifying the verb (列出), resource (项目), and scope (当前工作空间). It includes the API endpoint, distinguishing it from siblings like list_groups or search_apis.

  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?

  Explicitly states this is the first step before using other tools, mentioning that the obtained project_id should be passed to list_groups, search_apis, get_api_detail, and export_openapi. Provides clear when-to-use and why.

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

• eolink_search_apisA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations indicate readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds return fields, pagination with default limit, and filtering options, providing valuable behavioral context beyond annotations.

  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?

  Concise, well-structured with bullet points for parameters. Front-loaded with purpose and usage. No unnecessary information.

  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?

  No output schema, but description lists return fields (api_id, name, URL, method, group_name), which is sufficient for a search tool. Mentions limit and filtering, covering key context.

  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?

  All 5 parameters are described in both schema and description. Description adds value by explaining how to obtain values (e.g., project_id from list_projects, group_ids from list_groups) and clarifying keyword matching scope.

  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?

  Description clearly states it searches APIs by keyword, group, or status, returning a list. It distinguishes from sibling tools like eolink_get_api_detail and eolink_list_groups.

  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?

  Explicitly states it's the main entry for searching APIs and mentions using eolink_get_api_detail after retrieval. Provides parameter guidance but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives.

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

• eolink_export_openapiA
  4.8/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. The description adds critical behavioral context: '全量导出可能很大，会自动按字符上限截断' (automatic truncation by character limit), which is not conveyed by annotations. No contradiction.

  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 with a clear structure: purpose, parameters, behavioral note, and usage guidance. Every sentence adds value, no fluff.

  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 no output schema, the description mentions the output format (OpenAPI/Swagger JSON) and truncation behavior. It references sibling tools for prerequisites. Could add explicit mention of project ID source, but that's in schema parameter description.

  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 coverage is 100% with both parameters described. The description adds value by stating project_id is required and hinting to obtain it via eolink_list_projects, and clarifying group_ids is optional for filtering groups. This provides context beyond the schema alone.

  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 '导出' (export) and the resource '接口文档为 OpenAPI/Swagger JSON'. It specifies the required project_id and optional group_ids, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by noting it's suitable for full export, not single API queries.

  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 advises when to use ('一次性全量获取') and when not to ('日常查询单个接口' recommends alternatives). It names specific sibling tools (eolink_search_apis + eolink_get_api_detail) as better for daily use.

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