Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• discover_productsC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations, and description fails to disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, authentication via token, or idempotency behavior. Only parameter descriptions hint at JWT usage.

  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?

  Single sentence, no fluff. Appropriate length for a simple discovery tool, but could include more useful details.

  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 2 params and no output schema, description lacks context about return format, authentication requirements, or how buyer identity is resolved. Not complete for an agent to use confidently.

  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 3. Tool description adds no extra meaning beyond what parameter descriptions provide.

  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?

  States the tool discovers coarse product families for a buyer. Clear verb-resource but 'coarse' is vague. No differentiation from siblings.

  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 on when to use or when not to use. No mention of alternatives or prerequisites.

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

• well_known_capabilitiesB
  3.2/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the document is signed RS256, implying security context, but does not disclose any behavioral traits like required permissions, side effects, or what the document contains.

  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 front-loads the key action and resource, with no extraneous words. It is appropriately sized for a parameterless tool.

  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 no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides only the core purpose. It lacks context on the nature of the capability document, its usage, or its relationship to sibling tools, leaving room for ambiguity.

  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?

  There are no parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds meaning by specifying the document type (signed RS256) and scope (for this Seller MCP Node), going beyond the empty schema.

  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 returns a signed RS256 capability document, which is a specific verb+resource. While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings, the resource type is distinct, so purpose is clear.

  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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like discover_products or get_forecast. The description lacks context about appropriate usage scenarios.

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

• get_forecastA
  3.5/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  The description discloses the output format (Low/Mid/High) and the demo-mode limitation (synthetic data). However, it omits behavioral details such as authentication requirements, side effects, or error scenarios. With no annotations, a higher bar is unmet.

  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 long, front-loading the core purpose and a key caveat. Every sentence adds value with zero waste.

  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?

  The tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description covers the return type but omits important context such as when the optional token is needed, error handling, or idempotency details.

  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?

  All four parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no new semantics beyond the schema; it does not explain parameters like token or client_request_id further.

  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 'Get', the resource 'coarse availability forecast (Low/Mid/High)', and the scope 'for a product family and period'. It is distinct from sibling tools like discover_products or create_intent, making selection unambiguous.

  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 explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The note about 'Demo mode: synthetic data only' hints at a limitation but does not advise on appropriate contexts or exclusion criteria.

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

• revoke_intentA
  3.6/5.0
  Behavior3/5

  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 idempotency per client_request_id and scope (your own intents). However, it does not mention whether the revocation is destructive, any authentication requirements beyond the token, or what happens to related data. This is adequate but has gaps.

  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 only two sentences and front-loads the key action. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or filler.

  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 (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is fairly complete. It covers purpose, idempotency, and scope. However, it omits details like whether the intent must be active or error conditions, which would enhance completeness.

  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 the baseline is 3. The description adds the idempotency note for client_request_id, which provides context beyond the schema. However, the schema already has detailed descriptions for each parameter, so the added value is marginal.

  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 uses the specific verb 'revoke' and clearly states the resource ('your own active intents') and the identifier ('by id'). This distinguishes it from the sibling 'create_intent' tool, which performs the opposite operation.

  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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions 'your own active intents', implying a restriction, but lacks when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions. No alternatives are named.

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

• create_intentA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'soft commitment with TTL' and 'current firm price', adding some context beyond the schema. However, it lacks details on TTL duration, what happens after TTL, permission requirements, error conditions, or idempotency behavior, leaving gaps for an agent.

  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 extremely concise with two sentences that front-load the core action. Every word is meaningful, no redundancy, and it earns its place by clearly stating the purpose and what it is not.

  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 has 5 parameters (3 required), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is somewhat incomplete. It explains the main intent but omits details about return values, error handling, idempotency via client_request_id, and authentication requirements. More information is needed for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.

  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 the schema already explains each parameter's purpose. The description does not add new semantic meaning beyond repeating 'firm price' and 'product family', which are already in the schema. Thus, it meets the baseline without adding extra 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 'Register' and the resource 'a firm buying intent over a product family at its current firm price', and distinguishes it from 'GAM order' and 'inventory hold'. It also notes it's a soft commitment with TTL, providing a specific and unique purpose that differentiates it from sibling tools.

  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 states what the tool does and what it does not do ('Not a GAM order or inventory hold'), providing clear context for when to use it. However, it does not directly mention alternatives among sibling tools (e.g., 'revoke_intent') or specify when not to use it, missing some explicit guidance.

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