Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• check_gitlab_token_statusA
  3.7/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It states that the tool checks configuration and returns a message, but it does not clarify what 'configured' means (e.g., env variable presence vs. actual token validity) or explicitly confirm there are no side effects.

  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 compact, with the main action in the first sentence. The second sentence repeats the return value but is not overly verbose; it could be streamlined but remains efficient.

  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 zero-parameter status check, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and return value. It does not provide surrounding context, such as why one would need to check the token (e.g., before calling GitLab APIs), but this is not critical for such a simple tool.

  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 zero parameters, so the description need not add parameter semantics. The baseline of 4 applies because no parameters exist to clarify.

  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 checks if the GitLab token is configured in the environment, using the specific verb 'check' and a distinct resource. This is well differentiated from sibling tools focused on codebase and file operations.

  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. While sibling tools are clearly different, there is no explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions mentioned.

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

• get_fileA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

  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 discloses that the tool clones the repository, uses depth=1 for efficiency, returns the file content as a string, and returns an error message on failure. It also mentions the optional use_token authentication. It stops short of detailing cleanup, rate limits, or potential clone sizes, but the main behaviors are transparent.

  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 a purpose statement, behavioral details, and Args/Returns sections. It is somewhat longer than strictly necessary—the Returns section duplicates the earlier 'returns it as a string'—but every piece adds useful information and the front-loaded opening is clear.

  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 file-fetching tool, the description is complete enough: it explains the cloning behavior, depth optimization, authentication option, and return/error behavior. It lacks an explicit note on temporary storage or cleanup, but these are peripheral. With no output schema, the return type is clearly stated.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters5/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The input schema has no property descriptions, so the description's Args section adds essential semantics for all three parameters: repo_url is the repository URL, file_path is relative path, and use_token is optional with default True. This fully compensates for the 0% schema coverage.

  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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Fetch the content of a single specified file from a Git repository.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like get_codebase (which likely retrieves the whole repository) and estimate_codebase.

  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 tool's intended use case is clear: retrieve one file by cloning the repo. It provides operational details (depth=1, token auth) but does not explicitly state when to prefer get_codebase or other alternatives. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance are given, but the context strongly implies the single-file use case.

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

• estimate_codebaseA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure responsibility. It explicitly states that the tool 'clones a git repository' and analyzes its structure, which is a key side effect. It also discloses error conditions via the Raises section. It does not mention cleanup of the cloned repo or performance implications, which would be additional useful context, but the core behavior is transparent.

  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 well-structured with a summary, detailed items, and sections for Args, Returns, and Raises. The opening sentence is a clear one-liner, and the rest provides necessary detail without repetition. Every section serves a purpose, and the document is not overly verbose.

  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?

  The tool has moderate complexity (cloning, analysis, return format) and no output schema or annotations. The description covers the main aspects: purpose, parameters, return format, and error handling. It lacks a few contextual details such as whether the clone is temporary or if network/git availability is required, but it is sufficiently complete for most agent usage.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters5/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The schema descriptions are absent (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It fully explains both parameters: repo_url is the Git repository URL to clone, and use_token indicates whether to use GitLab token authentication (default True). This provides clear meaning beyond the plain schema types and is crucial for correct invocation.

  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's purpose: 'Get statistics about a Git repository without downloading all content.' It specifies the resource (Git repository) and the output (statistics like token count, file count, and structure), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_codebase (which presumably retrieves content). The verb 'Get' plus the listed outputs make the purpose unambiguous.

  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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: when statistical information about a repository is needed for LLM processing. The phrase 'without downloading all content' hints at a contrast with tools that download content, implying this is for lightweight analysis. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a perfect 5.

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

• get_codebaseA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: binary/empty files are excluded, .gitignore and .repomixignore are respected, token count uses o200k_base, optional GitLab token usage, and specific exceptions like GitCommandError. Missing cleanup/disposal details, but this is a strong disclosure.

  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 a summary, detailed behavior, Args, Returns, and Raises sections. It is slightly verbose but every sentence adds useful information, and the main purpose is front-loaded. More concise than most tool descriptions.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness5/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  The description covers the input, processing behavior, output format, error handling, and authentication nuance. There is no output schema, so the Returns section adequately explains the return value. For a tool of this complexity, the description is complete.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters5/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Despite 0% schema coverage, the description's Args section fully explains both parameters: repo_url is the repository URL, use_token controls GitLab token authentication with a default of True. This completely compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

  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 starts with a specific verb+resource: 'Clone a Git repository and generate a structured text file containing its contents.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like get_file (which likely fetches a single file) by specifying the full repository processing scope.

  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 clearly states what the tool does and the general context for use. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or provide alternatives such as 'get_file' for single-file access or 'estimate_codebase' for token estimation, so it misses the explicit exclusion/alternative guidance.

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