Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• songsterr_list_tuningsA
  3.7/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false. Description adds that tunings are listed with notes in low->high order, which is consistent and adds minor behavioral context.

  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 of 8 words, no extraneous information. Highly efficient and front-loaded.

  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 parameterless listing tool with an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It specifies the content (tuning presets) and order (low->high notes). Could optionally mention output format, but that is covered by schema.

  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; schema coverage is 100% (empty schema). The description adds no parameter info, but per guidelines, zero parameters yields a baseline of 4.

  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?

  Description clearly states verb 'list' and resource 'tuning presets', including ordering detail 'notes (low->high)'. While it implicitly distinguishes from siblings (get tab, search, transpose), it does not explicitly differentiate them.

  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 alternatives. However, given the simple listing nature and no sibling listing tools, the usage context is implied.

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

• songsterr_search_songsA
  4.1/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description adds the return format (JSON array of objects) and chaining behavior. It does not add negative or contradictory behavioral traits.

  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 two sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the purpose and immediately provides output format and a chaining hint, making it efficient for an agent.

  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?

  Given the simple tool (1 parameter, 1 required, output schema present), the description covers the core functionality and output. It does not cover error cases or pagination, but for a search tool, this is adequate.

  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% according to context, so the description must compensate. It mentions that search is by title/artist pattern and provides an example in the schema, but does not elaborate on the limit parameter or how the pattern is matched. The description adds the output format but lacks parameter details.

  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 'search', resource 'songs', and the criteria 'by title/artist pattern'. It distinguishes from siblings by hinting that the output id is used for songsterr_get_tab, and the other siblings (list_tunings, transpose) serve different purposes.

  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 indicates that after searching, the id should be passed to songsterr_get_tab, implying a workflow. However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool or provide alternatives, but the context from sibling names makes usage clear.

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

• songsterr_get_tabA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Discloses local caching behavior and full return JSON structure; readOnlyHint annotation is consistent.

  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?

  Three efficient sentences with no redundancy, front-loaded with the main action and output.

  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?

  Covers essential information for a simple tool with one parameter and output schema; minor gaps like error handling are acceptable.

  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?

  The description does not add meaning beyond the schema's parameter description; baseline score applies.

  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?

  Clearly states downloading a Guitar Pro source file, lists return structure, and connects to sibling tool songsterr_transpose, distinguishing its 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?

  Indicates when to use (after songsterr_search_songs, before songsterr_transpose) but lacks explicit exclusions or when-not-to-use.

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

• songsterr_transposeA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations provide idempotentHint=true, and the description adds that pitch is preserved, and returns ASCII tab or .gp5 path plus playability warnings. No contradictions. Describes outputs and warnings beyond 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?

  Two sentences, front-loaded with key action, no redundant words. Every sentence adds value.

  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?

  Given well-documented schema and existing output schema, the description covers purpose, key behavior, and outputs. It lacks explicit mention of file prerequisites but the parameter schema covers that. Overall sufficient.

  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?

  Schema descriptions already document all parameters, so the tool description adds marginal value (e.g., 'preserving pitch'). The description's additional context about 'plus any playability warnings' is helpful but not critical.

  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 re-fingers a track to a new tuning while preserving pitch, and mentions semitone_shift for key change. It distinguishes from siblings: songsterr_get_tab retrieves tabs, songsterr_list_tunings lists tunings, songsterr_search_songs searches.

  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 transposing tracks onto new tunings, but does not explicitly state when to use vs alternatives, nor when not to use. Prerequisites (file from songsterr_get_tab) are in the parameter schema, not description.

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