Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• gitlab_execute_actionA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds the crucial behavioral constraint that destructive actions require top-level confirm=true, and the structural requirement to pass params as an object. This adds context beyond annotations without contradicting them.

  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, front-loaded with the core purpose, then usage requirements, and ends with the alternative recommendation. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

  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?

  Given the strong annotations, complete schema coverage, and presence of an output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, confirm requirements, and alternatives. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

  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% and the schema already explains all parameters, including the special note about confirm placement. The description repeats some of this but adds no new semantic detail beyond the schema.

  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: 'Execute one GitLab catalog action by canonical ID or alias.' It uses a specific verb ('execute') and resource ('GitLab catalog action'), and distinguishes from the sibling tool by noting 'Use find first only when action or params are unclear.'

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines5/5

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

  The description gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use find first only when action or params are unclear' provides an alternative. It also provides usage requirements: 'Always pass params as an object' and 'destructive actions require top-level confirm=true.'

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

• gitlab_find_actionA
  4.7/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  The description adds value beyond annotations by specifying 'read-only and no GitLab API call' and detailing the return content (schemas, hints, destructive flags, execute examples). Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, but the description provides operational 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?

  The description is a single sentence that efficiently communicates purpose, usage context, and output. No redundant or extraneous information.

  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?

  Given the presence of an output schema (not shown but indicated), the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the core functionality, inputs, and output contents adequately for a search tool.

  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 covers all three parameters with descriptions, so schema description coverage is 100%. The tool description does not add significant parameter-specific information beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

  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 searches a local GitLab action catalog, distinguishing it from the sibling 'gitlab_execute_action' which likely executes actions. It specifies the input (query) and output (schemas, hints, flags, examples).

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines5/5

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

  The description explicitly says 'Use when the action ID or params are unclear', providing a clear use case. It also states it's read-only and makes no API call, guiding the agent away from using this tool for execution.

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