Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• list_projectsC
  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 carries the full burden. It states it lists projects 'with status', hinting at behavioral output, but doesn't disclose key traits like pagination, sorting, default behavior (e.g., active-only unless specified), authentication needs, or rate limits. For a list tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

  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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word contributes directly to the purpose without redundancy.

  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 incomplete for a list tool. It lacks details on return format (e.g., structure of projects, what 'status' entails), behavioral constraints, or error handling. With low complexity but missing output info, it should provide more context for effective 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%, with one parameter ('includeInactive') fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond implying status inclusion, which the schema already covers. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter semantics effectively.

  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 ('List') and resource ('all registered projects'), specifying the scope with 'with status'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'register_project' (create) and 'write_to_project' (modify), though not explicitly from 'read_from_project' (which might imply reading content vs. listing metadata).

  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. It doesn't mention if it's for overviews, filtering, or how it differs from 'read_from_project' (e.g., listing metadata vs. reading project data). The description implies a general listing function but 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.

• read_from_projectC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but lacks behavioral details. It doesn't disclose permissions required, rate limits, error handling, or output format (e.g., text string, binary data). 'Read' implies a safe operation, but without annotations, more context is needed for safe invocation.

  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, clear sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, making it easy to parse quickly.

  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 incomplete. It doesn't explain what is returned (e.g., file content as text, error if file not found), behavioral traits, or usage context. For a read operation with 4 parameters, more information is needed for reliable agent 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 parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying file content reading, which aligns with the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter semantics adequately.

  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 'Read file content from registered project' clearly states the action (read) and target (file content from registered project), distinguishing it from siblings like list_projects, register_project, and write_to_project. However, it doesn't specify what type of content is read (e.g., text, binary) or how it's returned, keeping it from a perfect score.

  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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., project must be registered), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like write_to_project for modifications. Usage is implied by the name but not explicitly stated.

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

• register_projectC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'registers' a project directory, implying a write/mutation operation, but doesn't disclose critical traits like whether this requires specific permissions, if it's idempotent, what happens on duplicate registration, or any rate limits. The mention of 'access' hints at enabling future operations but lacks details on effects or constraints.

  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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('register a project directory') without unnecessary words. Every part earns its place by specifying the resource and context ('for Claude Code Connector access'), making it appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

  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 tool involves mutation (registration) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the registration enables, potential side effects, error conditions, or return values. For a 4-parameter tool that likely modifies system state, more context on behavior and outcomes is needed to guide an agent effectively.

  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 4 parameters thoroughly (e.g., 'name' as human-readable, 'rootPath' as absolute path). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining how 'specPaths' relate to 'Claude Code Connector' functionality. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

  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 ('register') and resource ('project directory'), specifying it's for 'Claude Code Connector access'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_projects' (listing vs registering) and 'read_from_project/write_to_project' (accessing vs registering). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential overlapping tools beyond the given siblings.

  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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_projects' (which might show existing registrations) or prerequisites for registration. It mentions 'Claude Code Connector access' but doesn't clarify if this is for initial setup, re-registration, or specific contexts.

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

• write_to_projectC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states it's a write operation but doesn't mention permission requirements, error conditions (e.g., invalid paths), whether it's idempotent, or what happens on success/failure. The description is minimal and misses important behavioral context for a file write tool.

  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, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and target, making it immediately understandable. Every word earns its place in this concise formulation.

  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 write operation tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'registered project' means (context from sibling 'register_project'), doesn't mention the tool's effect on existing files, and provides no information about return values or error handling. The description leaves significant gaps for proper tool usage.

  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 all parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (like explaining what 'registered project' means or format expectations). Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

  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 ('write content') and target ('to a file in registered project directory'), which is specific and actionable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'read_from_project' by specifying a write operation, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other potential write operations beyond the project context.

  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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (like needing a registered project), when not to use it, or how it relates to sibling tools like 'register_project' (which might be required first). Usage context is implied but not explicitly stated.

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