Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• pinescript_reviewA
  3.5/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions streaming for large results, indicating non-blocking behavior, but does not disclose potential resource usage, side effects (e.g., file system writes), or whether it is read-only. Adequate but not comprehensive.

  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 sentence that efficiently conveys the core functionality and key features (single files, directories, streaming) without redundancy. Every phrase adds value.

  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's complexity (10 parameters, 3 enum types, no output schema), the description is relatively brief. It covers high-level capabilities but lacks details on return values, error handling, or comprehensive usage scenarios. Adequate for basic understanding but leaves gaps for nuanced use.

  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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds little to no new meaning beyond what the schema provides. It rephrases some parameter purposes but doesn't clarify dependencies or provide examples.

  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 identifies the tool's purpose: reviewing PineScript code against a style guide and language rules. It specifies supported input types (single files, directories) and output formats (streaming, JSON chunks), making the tool's scope 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?

  The description does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings (e.g., syntax_compatibility_validation). It lacks 'when to use' or 'when not to use' statements, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the description alone.

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

• syntax_compatibility_validationA
  3.7/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the core function of validating syntax and migration, but lacks details on behavioral traits such as side effects, rate limits, or what the output contains (e.g., errors, warnings).

  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?

  Single sentence, zero waste, directly conveys the tool's purpose. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded.

  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 no output schema and three well-documented parameters, the description is adequate but incomplete. It does not describe the output format or what validation results look like, which is important for a validation tool.

  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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds limited meaning beyond the schema; it restates the purpose of the code parameter and mentions migration_guide, but does not significantly enhance understanding.

  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 validates Pine Script code for v6 syntax compatibility and migration requirements, using a specific verb and resource that distinguishes it from sibling tools like pinescript_review or pinescript_reference.

  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 the tool should be used when checking v6 syntax compatibility, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor provide any when-not or exclusion criteria.

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

• pinescript_referenceA
  4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It mentions enhanced semantic matching and streaming support, which are behavioral traits. It does not disclose explicit safety or side effects, but the search nature implies read-only, and the added detail is valuable.

  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?

  Single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose and efficiently adds key differentiators (semantic matching, streaming). 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?

  For a search tool with 4 parameters (fully described in schema) and no output schema, the description covers the main behavioral aspect (enhanced matching, streaming). However, it does not differentiate from siblings or explain return structure, leaving a slight gap.

  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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond schema; 'synonym expansion' echoes the query description, and streaming is noted but already in format default. No significant new parameter insight.

  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 it searches PineScript documentation with added semantic matching and streaming support, distinguishing it from sibling tools like syntax_compatibility_validation or pinescript_review.

  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?

  No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings, such as pinescript_review or syntax_compatibility_validation. The description implies it is for documentation lookup but does not provide exclusion criteria or alternatives.

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

• mcp_service_versionA
  4.1/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It lists what the tool returns but does not discuss potential side effects, required permissions, error conditions, or whether it's read-only. For a simple version tool this is adequate but not comprehensive.

  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?

  Single sentence that efficiently conveys core purpose and additional diagnostics. No unnecessary 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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description provides a complete picture of what information the tool returns. It covers the main diagnostics expected from a version info tool.

  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, so baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter info, and it appropriately focuses on the output.

  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?

  Specifically describes the resource (authoritative version info from package.json) and additional diagnostic items (build status, git commit, bug fix resolution). Clearly distinguishes from sibling tools which focus on PineScript tasks.

  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?

  Describes what the tool does but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or provide any usage constraints. Siblings are unrelated, so lack of exclusion is less critical but still leaves room for improvement.

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