Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• select_mysql_versionD
  1.8/5.0
  Behavior1/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden but offers no behavioral context. It does not disclose if the tool performs a network call, whether it is read-only, or any side effects.

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

  Conciseness2/5

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

  While extremely concise, the description is under-specified. It fails to convey meaningful information, making the conciseness detrimental rather than beneficial.

  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?

  The description is incomplete for the tool's purpose. Even without parameters or output schema, it should indicate what is returned (e.g., version string), any necessary setup, or connection requirements. None of this is provided.

  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 zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter information, but none is required since there are no parameters.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose1/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description 'MySQL version.' is essentially a restatement of the tool name 'select_mysql_version', adding no new information. It is a tautology that fails to specify the action (e.g., retrieve, get) or the resource clearly.

  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?

  There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like 'query' or 'describe_table'. No context is provided about use cases, prerequisites, or alternatives.

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

• describe_tableC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states what it shows, not whether it's read-only, requires permissions, or has side effects. Minimal transparency.

  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?

  Single sentence, no wasted words. Front-loaded with the action. However, additional context could be included without excessive length.

  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 no output schema and low complexity, the description is too sparse. Lacks details on return format, error cases, or behavioral constraints. Does not fully inform an agent.

  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 adds no meaning beyond the parameter name 'tableName'. Does not specify format, case sensitivity, or acceptable values.

  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 shows columns, types, and constraints for a table, which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_tables (list tables) and query (run queries).

  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 query or list_tables. Lacks context on prerequisites or exclusions.

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

• mutateC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention important aspects like permissions required, side effects, transaction handling, error behavior, or security risks (e.g., SQL injection).

  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, concise sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded and contains no filler, but the brevity sacrifices necessary details about usage and parameters.

  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?

  For a tool that executes arbitrary SQL mutations, the description is incomplete. It lacks details about output (e.g., affected rows), error handling, security considerations, and parameterization. The absence of annotations and output schema heightens this gap.

  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?

  With 0% schema description coverage, the description must clarify parameter meaning, but it only mentions 'optional params' without explaining their format (e.g., array of values for placeholders). The 'sql' parameter's role is clear, but 'params' remains vague.

  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 specifies the verb 'Run' and explicitly lists the SQL operations (INSERT, UPDATE, DELETE), clarifying it is for data modification. This helps distinguish it from the SELECT-focused sibling 'query', though it could be more precise about scope (e.g., DML only).

  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 use for INSERT/UPDATE/DELETE statements but does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare with alternatives like 'query'. Without guidance, an agent might misuse it for SELECT or DDL commands.

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

• list_tablesB
  3.1/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations, the description solely conveys behavior. It indicates a read operation listing tables but adds no details about performance, error conditions, or return format, which are important for an agent to understand consequences.

  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 short sentence, which is efficient. However, it has a minor grammatical issue ('that connected') which slightly reduces polish.

  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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description provides the basic purpose. However, it could be more complete by specifying exactly what is returned (e.g., table names) or potential limitations.

  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 and schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly adds no parameter information as none exist.

  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 verb 'listing' and the resource 'all table', distinguishing it from siblings like describe_table or query. The grammar is slightly off but the intent is unambiguous.

  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 like describe_table or query. The description only states what it does without any contextual usage advice.

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

• queryB
  3.1/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations exist. Description only mentions 'read-only' and param placeholders. Lacks details on query limits, error handling, or result format, which are critical for a query tool.

  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?

  Single sentence is concise but omits important guidance. Front-loads 'read-only', but the brevity sacrifices necessary detail.

  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?

  For a simple query tool with no annotations or output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not cover return behavior, pagination, or error scenarios, leaving agents underinformed.

  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?

  No schema description coverage. Description adds only param placeholder usage ('?') but does not explain sql syntax requirements or params type/format, leaving significant ambiguity.

  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?

  Clearly states 'read-only SELECT query' with optional params, distinguishing it from sibling tools like mutate (for writes) and table description tools.

  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?

  Implicitly suggests use for read queries via 'read-only', and '? placeholders' hints at parameterization. No explicit when-not or alternatives provided, but sibling context fills some gaps.

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