Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• remote-sshB
  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 must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions authentication method but omits details on command execution behavior, such as whether it streams output, typical timeouts, exit code handling, or error responses.

  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 efficiently conveys the core purpose. However, it may be too brief to cover essential behavioral details, but for conciseness alone it performs well.

  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 there is no output schema and no annotations, the description fails to specify what the tool returns (e.g., stdout, exit code) or how it handles errors. It also does not mention runtime considerations like timeout or command chaining, leaving the agent underinformed for a potentially sensitive operation.

  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 parameters are well-described in the schema. The description adds only the authentication context; it does not provide additional semantic nuance beyond what the schema already offers, so baseline 3 is 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 tool name 'remote-ssh' and description 'Execute SSH commands on remote servers with private key authentication' clearly state the verb (execute) and resource (SSH commands on remote servers), and they distinguish from siblings like 'ssh-edit-block' which focus on file editing.

  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 this tool is for executing arbitrary commands versus the siblings that handle specific operations (edit, read, search, write), but it does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention prerequisites or alternatives.

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

• ssh-edit-blockB
  3.3/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  Without annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'edit specific text blocks' without detailing whether the operation is destructive, requires permissions, handles missing oldText, or is idempotent. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

  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 efficiently conveys the core purpose and unique value proposition. While appropriately front-loaded, it could benefit from slight structural expansion for completeness.

  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 annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not cover prerequisites, error conditions, return behavior, or when to use alternatives. The tool has 8 parameters and potential side effects, yet the description provides minimal context.

  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 no extra meaning beyond the schema; it simply repeats the idea of editing text blocks. No additional context for parameters like expectedReplacements or privateKeyPath is provided.

  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 edits specific text blocks in remote files, and positions itself as a token-efficient alternative to full rewrites. This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like ssh-read-lines, ssh-search-code, and ssh-write-chunk.

  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 for small edits via 'token-efficient alternative to full rewrites', but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like ssh-write-chunk for full rewrites or remote-ssh for general commands. No when-not-to-use or alternative conditions are provided.

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

• ssh-write-chunkB
  3.3/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It notes append/rewrite modes and token efficiency but omits key details like connection handling, overwrite behavior, error semantics, or return value. For a write tool, this is insufficient.

  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?

  A single sentence front-loads the verb and resource, then adds mode and efficiency hint. It is efficient but sacrifices depth. No fluff, but missing needed details.

  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?

  The tool has 7 parameters and no output schema. The description does not explain return values, error handling, prerequisites (e.g., SSH key setup), or how multiple chunks interact. It is incomplete for a reliable agent invocation.

  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 the schema already describes all parameters. The description adds only a general hint about token efficiency without enriching individual parameter semantics. Baseline 3 is 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 verb 'Write', the resource 'remote files', and specifies append/rewrite modes, distinguishing it from sibling tools like ssh-edit-block. The mention of token efficiency for large content adds further context.

  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 writing or updating remote files, especially large content, but does not explicitly compare with siblings like ssh-edit-block or provide when-not-to-use guidance. No prerequisites or alternatives are mentioned.

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

• ssh-read-linesA
  3.6/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It states the tool reads lines and emphasizes token efficiency, but does not disclose auth requirements, error behavior, or confirm read-only nature. The name implies a safe operation, but more detail is needed for full 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?

  The description is a single, concise sentence that includes an important trait (token efficiency). It is front-loaded with the core purpose, though it could be slightly more structured with usage hints.

  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?

  For a simple read tool with 8 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description provides the basic purpose and a key benefit. However, it lacks details on prerequisites, error conditions, or when to use alternatives, leaving some gaps.

  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 baseline is 3. The description adds a general note about token efficiency but does not clarify parameter meanings beyond what the schema already provides.

  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 'Read specific lines from remote files' clearly states the action and resource. The name and description together distinguish it from sibling tools like ssh-edit-block, ssh-write-chunk, etc., which perform different operations.

  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 hints at a use case ('token-efficient for large files') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks guidance on when not to use it or direct comparisons to siblings.

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

• ssh-search-codeA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It mentions token-efficiency but lacks details on read-only behavior, error handling, or security considerations. 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, to the point, no extraneous information. Excellent conciseness.

  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?

  Despite 10 parameters and no output schema, the description provides no guidance on result format, limits, or error conditions. Incomplete for a complex tool with many parameters.

  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 description adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond the overall purpose. Baseline score of 3 is 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 'Search for patterns' and the resource 'remote files', and distinguishes it from siblings by emphasizing 'without reading full content (token-efficient)'.

  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 implies when to use (token-efficient search) and distinguishes from siblings like ssh-read-lines, but does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternative tool names.

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