Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get_connection_infoA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It clearly notes that the tool does not spawn anything, implying read-only behavior. However, it does not mention potential side effects or error conditions. The transparency is high but not exhaustive.

  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?

  Two sentences, zero waste. First sentence states function, second gives usage context. Efficient and clear.

  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?

  No output schema, and description does not specify return format or error handling. It covers purpose and usage well, but lacks detail on output structure and potential issues, making it somewhat incomplete for a tool with 12 parameters and no output schema.

  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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds little beyond schema: it mentions config file only for load-balanced tunnels, a nuance not in schema. This adds some value, but does not substantially enhance parameter understanding.

  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 it retrieves the CLI command and optional config file for manual tunnel creation, and distinguishes it from create_tunnel by emphasizing it does not spawn anything.

  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?

  Explicitly states when to use: when MCP cannot spawn subprocesses, when tunnel must outlive server, or when user prefers manual execution. Also references create_tunnel as alternative.

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

• close_tunnelA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Discloses that 'The public URL stops working immediately', which is a key behavioral trait. However, with no annotations, it doesn't mention irreversibility or potential side effects. Still, it provides important context beyond the schema.

  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?

  Four sentences, front-loaded with core action, then effect, then usage context, then sibling reference. No unnecessary words; every sentence adds value.

  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 tool with 2 params and no output schema, the description covers purpose, effect, and usage hints. Could explicitly mention that the action is irreversible or idempotent, but overall it's sufficient.

  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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds 'by its ID' and 'use list_tunnels to find the tunnel_id', but doesn't add significant new meaning about parameters beyond what the schema already provides.

  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 'Force-close a specific tunnel by its ID', which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_tunnel and list_tunnels by providing usage context and referencing list_tunnels for finding the ID.

  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?

  Explicitly states when to use: 'when a tunnel is no longer needed or public access must be revoked right away' with examples (webhook test, demo). Also directly recommends an alternative tool 'Use list_tunnels to find the tunnel_id'.

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

• create_tunnelA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description discloses that it spawns a subprocess, the tunnel persists until close_tunnel is called or server exits, and token can be omitted if environment variable is set. No destructive behavior is indicated.

  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 relatively long but well-structured with sections for modes and load balancing. Every sentence adds value, though some details could be more concise. Overall, it is efficiently organized.

  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 tool's complexity (12 parameters, nested objects, multiple modes, no output schema), the description thoroughly covers functionality, usage scenarios, and configuration. It provides sufficient context for correct agent invocation.

  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?

  Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds significant context beyond schema by explaining protocols, load balancing, P2P modes, and health check details, enhancing understanding of parameter usage.

  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 opens a tunnel to a locally running service and provides a public URL. It lists protocols and modes, distinguishing it from sibling tools like close_tunnel and list_tunnels.

  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 explicitly specifies when to use this tool (e.g., webhook testing, sharing dev server). It details different protocol use cases and load balancing, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives.

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

• list_tunnelsA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It implies read-only behavior and lists return fields. Lacks explicit mention of authentication requirements or error states, but non-destructive nature is clear.

  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?

  Three sentences: first states purpose, second describes output, third lists use cases. Front-loaded and efficient with no wasted words.

  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 simplicity (one optional param, no output schema), the description covers purpose, output, and usage scenarios adequately. Lacks mention of token source or error handling, but sufficient for a list operation.

  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 coverage is 100% for the single optional parameter (token). The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema's description.

  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 'List all tunnels currently open on this server' and specifies return fields (public URL, protocol, traffic count). It also differentiates from siblings by mentioning finding tunnel_id for close_tunnel.

  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?

  Explicitly states when to use: 'check whether a tunnel is still running, recover the public URL, or find a tunnel_id to pass to close_tunnel.' Implicitly suggests alternatives for creation and info.

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