Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• nacos_get_configB
  3.2/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond what annotations provide. Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe, idempotent read operation. The description mentions the return format options (Markdown or JSON), which adds some value, but doesn't describe error conditions, rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens when configurations don't exist. No contradiction with annotations exists.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness3/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is reasonably concise but has structural issues. The first two sentences are somewhat redundant. The parameter and return sections are clearly labeled but could be more efficiently integrated. While not verbose, it could be more front-loaded with critical 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 moderate complexity (retrieving configurations with multiple parameters), rich annotations, and the presence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks usage context, error handling information, and behavioral details that would help an agent use it effectively in various scenarios.

  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 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the full burden of parameter documentation. It lists all 4 parameters (data_id, group_name, namespace_id, response_format) with brief explanations and defaults, which compensates well for the schema's lack of descriptions. However, it doesn't provide examples or detailed constraints beyond what's obvious from parameter names.

  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 tool's purpose: '获取 Nacos 配置内容' (Get Nacos configuration content) and '从 Nacos 配置中心获取指定的配置内容' (Get specified configuration content from Nacos configuration center). It uses specific verbs ('获取' - get/retrieve) and identifies the resource (Nacos configuration). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'nacos_publish_config' beyond the obvious get vs. publish distinction.

  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 the sibling tool 'nacos_publish_config' or any other alternatives. There's no information about prerequisites, when this tool is appropriate versus other configuration retrieval methods, or any usage constraints beyond what's implied by the parameters.

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

• nacos_publish_configA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by clarifying the dual behavior ('创建新配置或更新已有配置' - creates new or updates existing), which isn't captured in annotations. It doesn't mention authentication needs, rate limits, or side effects beyond the core operation, but with annotations covering safety and idempotency, this is sufficient.

  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 well-structured with clear sections for purpose, parameters, and return. It's front-loaded with the core purpose. Some redundancy exists (e.g., repeating parameter names in description vs. schema), but overall it's efficient and readable.

  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 tool's complexity (mutation operation with multiple parameters), annotations cover safety and idempotency, and an output schema exists (so return values are documented elsewhere). The description provides adequate context on purpose and parameters. It could improve by mentioning the sibling tool for better guidance, but it's largely complete 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 0%, but the description compensates by listing all parameters with brief explanations and defaults. However, it doesn't add significant meaning beyond what's implied by parameter names (e.g., 'data_id' as configuration ID). The schema itself has detailed property descriptions, so the description provides basic orientation but minimal extra semantic value.

  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 ('发布' - publish) and resource ('Nacos 配置' - Nacos configuration), specifying it creates new configurations or updates existing ones. This distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'nacos_get_config' which presumably only retrieves configurations.

  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 '创建新配置或更新已有配置' (creates new configurations or updates existing ones), suggesting this is for configuration management. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives or any prerequisites. The presence of a sibling tool 'nacos_get_config' isn't leveraged for comparative guidance.

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