Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get_project_structureB
  3.1/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safe and repeatable nature of the operation is covered. The description adds little beyond this, but it does clarify that the tool reads a project's file structure and does not contradict the 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?

  The description is a single concise sentence with no filler or redundancy. The verb and object are front-loaded, and every word contributes meaning.

  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 context is fairly simple: one required parameter, safe annotations, and an output schema. However, the description lacks important details about how to specify project_path and what makes the file structure 'relevant,' so it is adequate but incomplete.

  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?

  The input schema provides only the parameter name and type, with 0% description coverage. The tool description suggests project_path refers to an OpenPLC Editor project, but it does not specify whether it should be a directory path, a file path, absolute or relative, creating ambiguity for the agent.

  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 action ('Return') and the resource ('the relevant file structure of an OpenPLC Editor project'), which distinguishes it from siblings like get_server_info and list_pous. However, the word 'relevant' is vague and leaves unclear what subset of the file structure is included.

  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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when get_server_info or list_pous would be more appropriate, nor does it state any prerequisites such as needing a valid project directory.

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

• list_pousB
  3.1/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds that the returned scope includes programs, function blocks, and functions, but does not disclose additional behavior such as error handling, path validation, or output shape beyond what annotations already imply.

  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 one concise, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant information. It states exactly what the tool does in minimal space.

  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 listing tool with only one parameter and an existing output schema, the description is mostly adequate. However, it lacks parameter-level guidance and does not clarify how project_path should be provided, leaving some room for interpretation.

  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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the project_path parameter at all. The schema's title 'Project Path' gives basic meaning, but the description adds no value about expected path format or whether it must be absolute, relative, or point to a specific file.

  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 uses a specific verb ('List') and a specific resource ('programs, function blocks, and functions in an OpenPLC project'), clearly indicating what the tool returns. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like get_project_structure, but the resource focus is specific enough to allow an agent to distinguish it.

  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 for when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_project_structure or get_server_info. The description implies a use case but does not state exclusions, prerequisites, or when another sibling would be more appropriate.

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

• get_server_infoA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description does not need to restate those. It adds useful context by labeling the server as 'experimental', which signals potential instability or changing behavior beyond what the annotations convey.

  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?

  A single concise sentence that front-loads the action ('Return') and resource, with no redundant or filler content. Every word earns its place.

  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 zero-parameter info tool, the description is complete: annotations cover safety and idempotence, the output schema defines the return format, and the description adds the experimental context. Nothing essential is missing.

  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?

  With zero parameters, the schema fully covers parameter semantics (vacuously). The description adds no parameter information, but none is needed. Baseline of 4 is appropriate for a parameterless tool.

  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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and a clear resource ('basic information about this experimental OpenPLC MCP server'). It is distinct from the sibling tools in subject matter, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from get_project_structure or list_pous.

  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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the siblings, nor any exclusions or alternatives. The intended use is implied by the resource name, but there is no direct usage context.

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