Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• decompile-from-packageB
  3.4/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only states the basic action without detailing return values, side effects, classpath resolution behavior, error conditions, or whether the operation is read-only. This is minimal disclosure beyond the one-sentence purpose.

  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, tightly crafted sentence that conveys the essential purpose without any filler or repetition. It is front-loaded with the action and object, making it highly scannable.

  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 the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not explain what the decompilation returns, how the classpath is used, or how this tool differs behaviorally from siblings, leaving significant gaps for an agent deciding whether and how to use it.

  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% with descriptive text for both packageName and classpath, so the schema already fully explains the parameters. The description adds no extra meaning about parameter semantics, making the baseline score 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 action ('Decompiles') and the resource ('a Java class from a package name'), immediately distinguishing it from sibling tools that decompile from paths or JARs. The specific phrase 'from a package name' conveys the exact scope of the tool.

  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 usage when the input is a fully-qualified Java package/class name, but it does not explicitly mention when to choose this tool over decompile-from-path or decompile-from-jar, nor does it provide exclusions or alternative recommendations. The schema clarifies parameter format but not selection criteria.

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

• decompile-from-jarA
  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 must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the core function and provides usage workflow; it does not describe what the decompilation returns, whether it creates files, requires special permissions, or how errors are handled. For a tool with no annotation safety profile, this is a significant transparency gap.

  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?

  The description is structured with a clear one-sentence overview followed by a multi-section guide with headings, code blocks, and notes. While organized, it is lengthy for a simple function and includes details like 'grep -v source' that may be beyond the tool's core usage. The repeated mention of 'mcp_javadc' (a different name) and the Maven-specific workflow add unnecessary verbosity, though the structure is readable.

  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 has two parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description provides a complete workflow for the Maven repository use case, which is valuable, but it does not explain the output format (decompiled source code) or address non-Maven JAR usage. It also lacks differentiation from sibling tools beyond the source type. This is adequate for a clear use case but incomplete for general application.

  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%—both parameter descriptions already explain the values clearly. The description adds some contextual meaning by showing how to locate the jarFilePath via Maven commands and gives an example of className format, but these are supplemental rather than essential. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema 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 opening line 'Decompiles a Java class from a JAR file' clearly states the verb (decompiles), resource (Java class), and source (JAR file). This immediately distinguishes it from sibling tools decompile-from-path and decompile-from-package by specifying the input type. The additional detail about fully qualified class names further clarifies the exact purpose.

  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 includes a detailed 'Using mcp_javadc with Maven Repository' section that explains when to use this tool: when decompiling classes from dependency JARs in the M2 repository. It provides step-by-step instructions including finding the JAR and using the function. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, so it misses the exclusion part, though the context is clear.

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

• decompile-from-pathA
  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 full burden. It only states the action 'decompiles' without mentioning whether output is returned, if side effects exist, or any error behaviors. This is a significant gap for a tool with no structured behavioral metadata.

  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 that conveys the necessary information without unnecessary words. It is 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?

  With only one parameter and no output schema, the description should at least clarify what the agent receives after decompilation (e.g., decompiled source code). The current description omits this, leaving the tool somewhat incomplete despite its simplicity.

  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%, with classFilePath described as 'The absolute path to the .class file'. The description does not add any parameter details beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

  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 'decompiles' and the resource 'Java .class file', with the qualifier 'from a given file path' that distinguishes it from sibling tools decompile-from-package and decompile-from-jar. This meets the bar for specific verb+resource+scope.

  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 when-to-use or alternatives are mentioned, but the description implies usage for individual .class files at a specific path. The sibling tool names provide context, yet the description itself lacks explicit guidance.

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