Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• update_progressC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only says 'update progress' without explaining side effects, error conditions, idempotency, or how it interacts with the progress token. It adds no context beyond the operation name.

  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 with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and easy to parse, though it could be slightly more informative without losing brevity.

  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 tool with 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the overall behavior, the optionality semantics of 'total' and 'message', or what happens when the progress token is invalid.

  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 does not add any additional meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema already provides, but it does not need to because the schema is thorough.

  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 'update' and resource 'progress', and the qualifier 'for an ongoing operation' distinguishes it from start_progress and complete_progress siblings. However, it doesn't elaborate on the distinction beyond what the sibling names imply.

  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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'ongoing operation' vaguely suggests mid-operation updates, but there are no exclusions or mentions of notify, start_progress, or complete_progress.

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

• complete_progressB
  3.1/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only states the basic action without disclosing side effects, irreversibility, or state requirements. The optional 'message' parameter suggests completion messaging, but the description doesn't explain the behavior or consequences.

  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 sentence, concise and unambiguous. It front-loads the action, but it could benefit from a brief note on lifecycle context. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool.

  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 description is minimal for a lifecycle operation. It doesn't explain that the progressToken must reference an active progress operation, nor does it mention the relationship to start_progress. The optional message and completion semantics are unclear. Given the simplicity and schema coverage, some gaps remain.

  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 input schema already describes both parameters with 100% coverage. The description adds no extra meaning about progressToken format, message constraints, or usage context.

  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 uses a specific verb 'Mark' and clearly identifies the resource 'progress operation' and action 'complete'. It distinguishes from siblings like start_progress and update_progress, as 'complete' is a distinct lifecycle stage.

  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 notify, start_progress, or update_progress. It doesn't state prerequisites (e.g., that a progress operation must be in progress) or lifecycle placement.

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

• start_progressB
  3.1/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states that it 'starts tracking progress', implying a state change, but does not explain idempotency, the need to pair with update/complete tools, or what happens with duplicate progressTokens. This is a significant gap for a state-initiating operation.

  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 sentence with no fluff, front-loaded with the action verb. It is concise and efficient.

  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 a simple signature and high schema coverage, but the description does not articulate the relationship with sibling tools or the expected lifecycle (start → update → complete). It is adequate for basic invocation but incomplete for proper workflow 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% with clear parameter descriptions for progressToken, title, and total. The description adds no extra parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

  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 clear action verb 'Start tracking' with a specific resource 'progress' and a context 'long-running operation'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (notify, update_progress, complete_progress) by indicating the initiation phase, though it does not explicitly name them.

  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 does not mention that this should be called before update_progress/complete_progress or that it is for initiating a progress tracking session. The sibling tools are not referenced in the description.

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

• notifyB
  3.3/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  There are no annotations provided, so the description carries the full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states that it displays a notification, with no mention of side effects (e.g., whether sound plays), blocking behavior, permission requirements, or whether the notification is system-level or in-app. While it does not contradict anything, it provides minimal behavioral context beyond the tool's name.

  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: 'Display a notification to the user'. It conveys the core action immediately with no redundant words or filler, earning a top score for conciseness.

  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 tool with no output schema and a fully documented parameter schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks contextual completeness by not explaining what kind of notification is shown, whether it blocks, or how it relates to the sibling progress tools. Given the simplicity, a short description is acceptable, but the missing usage context prevents a higher score.

  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%, as every parameter (title, message, sound) has a description in the schema. The tool description adds no extra meaning about the parameters, but because the schema already provides full details, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate. The description does not need to compensate.

  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 'Display a notification to the user' uses a specific verb (Display), names the resource (notification), and specifies the recipient (user). It clearly distinguishes this tool from the sibling progress-related tools (start_progress, update_progress, complete_progress), which are about tracking progress rather than showing a standalone notification.

  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, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. It simply states what the tool does without any contextual usage hints, such as whether it should be used alongside progress tools or for alerts. This is a clear gap.

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