Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• capacities_save_to_daily_noteB
  3.3/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false (implying a write operation) and openWorldHint=true (suggesting flexible use), which the description aligns with by describing an 'Add' action. However, it doesn't add significant behavioral context beyond annotations, such as whether the text is appended or overwritten, or any rate limits or permissions needed.

  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 action and resource without unnecessary details. It's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, with zero waste or redundancy.

  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?

  Given the tool's moderate complexity (4 parameters, no output schema) and rich annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on usage context, behavioral nuances, or output expectations, leaving gaps that could hinder an AI agent's 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?

  With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema fully documents all parameters, including mdText, noTimestamp, origin, and spaceId. The description mentions 'markdown text' and 'today's daily note', which loosely maps to mdText and implies a date context, but adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema.

  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 ('Add markdown text') and target resource ('today's daily note in a Capacities space'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like capacities_save_weblink, which might also involve saving content but to different resources.

  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, such as capacities_save_weblink for saving links or capacities_search for finding notes. It lacks context on prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid spaceId) or exclusions, leaving usage unclear.

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

• capacities_list_spacesB
  3.4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, indicating this is a safe read operation that may return incomplete data. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond this—it specifies 'all personal spaces' but doesn't mention pagination, rate limits, or what 'personal spaces' entails. With annotations covering safety, a 3 is appropriate as the description adds some value but not rich behavioral details.

  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 no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to scan. Every part of the sentence earns its place by conveying essential information.

  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?

  Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, read-only operation), the description is adequate but has gaps. Annotations cover safety, but there's no output schema, so the description doesn't explain return values (e.g., format of the list). For a list operation, more context on output structure would be helpful, but the description meets minimum viability.

  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?

  The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. The description correctly doesn't mention any parameters, which is appropriate. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as no parameter semantics are needed.

  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 ('Get a list') and resource ('all personal spaces in Capacities'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'capacities_get_space_info' (which presumably gets details for a specific space), but the scope is clear. The description avoids tautology by not just repeating the tool name.

  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 sibling tools like 'capacities_search' (which might search within spaces) or 'capacities_get_space_info' (which gets details for a specific space), nor does it specify any prerequisites or contexts for use. The agent must infer usage from the description alone.

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

• capacities_save_weblinkA
  3.5/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false (mutation) and openWorldHint=true (supports flexible inputs), which the description aligns with by describing a save operation. It adds context about tag creation if names don't match, but doesn't disclose other behavioral traits like error handling, rate limits, or authentication needs beyond what annotations provide.

  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 and lists optional features. Every word contributes to understanding without redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

  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 mutation tool with no output schema and rich annotations, the description adequately covers the basic operation but lacks details on return values, error conditions, or integration with sibling tools. It's minimally viable given the context but has clear gaps in completeness.

  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 fully documented in the schema. The description mentions optional title and tags, which map to titleOverwrite and tags parameters, but adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., no usage examples or edge cases).

  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 ('Save a web link') and target resource ('to a Capacities space'), specifying optional features (title and tags). It distinguishes from siblings like capacities_get_space_info (read-only info) and capacities_save_to_daily_note (different target), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from capacities_search (search vs. save).

  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 saving web links with metadata to a space, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like capacities_save_to_daily_note (for daily notes) or capacities_search (for finding content). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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

• capacities_searchA
  3.5/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, indicating a safe, exploratory operation. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond this, such as mentioning 'optional filtering' but not detailing result formats, pagination, or error handling. It doesn't contradict annotations, so it earns a baseline score for adding some value.

  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 action ('Search for content') and includes key details ('across Capacities spaces with optional filtering'). There is no wasted verbiage, making it highly concise and well-structured.

  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?

  Given the tool's moderate complexity (4 parameters, no output schema) and rich annotations, the description is adequate but lacks details on output format or error scenarios. It covers the basic purpose but doesn't fully compensate for the absence of an output schema, leaving gaps in completeness.

  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 fully documents all parameters. The description mentions 'optional filtering' but doesn't add specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining how filtering interacts with search modes. This aligns with the baseline for high schema coverage.

  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 ('Search') and resource ('content across Capacities spaces'), making the purpose evident. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'capacities_list_spaces' or 'capacities_save_to_daily_note', which reduces 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 Guidelines3/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description implies usage through 'optional filtering' but doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'capacities_list_spaces' for listing spaces or 'capacities_save_to_daily_note' for saving content. It provides some context but lacks explicit guidance on exclusions or comparisons.

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

• capacities_get_space_infoA
  3.6/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, indicating this is a safe read operation that may return varying data. The description adds value by specifying what information is included ('structures and collections'), which provides useful context beyond the annotations. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, or response format details.

  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 and includes relevant scope details ('including structures and collections'). There's no wasted language, and every element serves to clarify the tool's function.

  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 simple read operation with one parameter and good annotations, the description is reasonably complete. It specifies what information is returned, which compensates for the lack of an output schema. However, it could be more complete by mentioning the response format or any limitations, though annotations cover the safety profile adequately.

  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 the single parameter 'spaceId' fully documented as 'The UUID of the space to get information for'. The description doesn't add any additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without compensating with extra details.

  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 ('Get detailed information') and resource ('a specific Capacities space'), including scope ('including structures and collections'). It distinguishes from 'capacities_list_spaces' by focusing on a single space rather than listing multiple spaces, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other siblings like 'capacities_search'.

  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 context through 'a specific Capacities space' and the required spaceId parameter, suggesting this tool is for retrieving details about a known space. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'capacities_search' or mention any prerequisites beyond having a space ID.

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