Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• namecheap_check_domain_availabilityC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action but lacks details on traits like rate limits, authentication requirements, response format (e.g., returns availability status per domain), or error handling. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.

  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 with zero waste—it directly states the tool's purpose without redundancy. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

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

  Completeness2/5

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

  Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return values (e.g., what availability data looks like), error conditions, or behavioral constraints. For a tool with minimal structured data, the description should provide more context to be fully helpful.

  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 parameter 'domains' fully documented in the schema as an array of domain names. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., no examples of valid formats beyond the schema's example). Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

  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 ('Check') and resource ('availability of one or more domains'), making the purpose unambiguous. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'namecheap_get_domain_list' (which likely lists owned domains) or 'namecheap_set_custom_dns' (which configures DNS), but the action is specific enough to imply 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 prerequisites (e.g., authentication), context for checking availability (e.g., before registration), or comparisons to siblings like 'namecheap_get_domain_list' for owned domains. Usage is implied by the action but not explicitly stated.

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

• namecheap_set_custom_dnsC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a 'Set' operation (implying mutation), but doesn't clarify permissions required, whether changes are immediate or propagate over time, if there are rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. This leaves critical behavioral aspects undocumented.

  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, focused sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately scannable and efficient.

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

  Completeness2/5

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

  For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error conditions, or important behavioral constraints. The 100% schema coverage helps with inputs, but overall context for safe and effective use is lacking.

  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 both parameters are well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter context beyond what's already in the schema (domain format, nameserver array structure). This meets 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 action ('Set') and resource ('custom DNS nameservers for a domain'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like domain checking or listing, but the verb 'Set' implies a configuration change distinct from those read-only 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 or prerequisites. It doesn't mention if this should be used instead of default DNS settings, what happens to existing nameservers, or any dependencies like domain ownership verification.

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

• namecheap_get_domain_listB
  3.2/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states it's a read operation ('Get'), but doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior, or what the returned list includes (e.g., domain status, expiration dates). This leaves significant gaps for a tool that presumably accesses account data.

  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 directly states what the tool does without any unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core functionality.

  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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides the minimum viable information about what the tool does. However, without annotations or output details, it doesn't fully address behavioral aspects like authentication needs or return format, leaving some contextual gaps.

  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 with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the input structure. The description appropriately doesn't add parameter information, maintaining focus on the tool's purpose. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for zero-parameter tools.

  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 ('Get') and resource ('list of all domains in your Namecheap account'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'namecheap_check_domain_availability' or 'namecheap_set_custom_dns', which prevents 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 Guidelines2/5

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

  No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, limitations, or relationships to sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer usage context independently.

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