Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• generate-api-routesC
  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 what the tool does but lacks details on behavioral traits such as whether it modifies files, requires specific permissions, handles errors, or produces output format. For a generation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

  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 the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to understand 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 the complexity of generating API route handlers and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool outputs (e.g., code files, configuration), how to handle the results, or any dependencies. For a tool with 2 parameters and no structured output information, more context is needed.

  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 documents both parameters ('framework' and 'typesImportPath') with descriptions and enums. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining how the parameters affect the generation process. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 tool's purpose: 'Generate API route handlers for Next.js or Express that use the Kalendis backend client.' It specifies the verb ('generate'), resource ('API route handlers'), and technology context. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'generate-backend-client' or 'generate-frontend-client' beyond mentioning the backend client usage.

  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 mentions using the Kalendis backend client, but doesn't explain when to choose this over sibling tools like 'generate-backend-client' or 'list-endpoints,' nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions for usage.

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

• generate-frontend-clientC
  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. While it indicates this is a generation tool (implying a write operation), it lacks details on permissions needed, whether it overwrites existing files, what the output format is, or any rate limits. The description is minimal and doesn't provide sufficient behavioral context for safe use.

  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 the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, with every element contributing to understanding.

  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 generation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the generated client includes, how it's structured, where it's saved, or what happens if files already exist. Given the complexity implied by generating a TypeScript client, more context is needed for effective use.

  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 fully documents the single optional parameter. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, but with high coverage and only one parameter, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

  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's purpose: 'Generate a TypeScript client for frontend apps that calls your backend API endpoints'. It specifies the verb ('Generate'), resource ('TypeScript client'), and target context ('frontend apps'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'generate-backend-client' or 'generate-api-routes'.

  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 sibling tools like 'generate-backend-client' or 'generate-api-routes', nor does it specify prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or exclusions for usage.

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

• list-endpointsB
  3.1/5.0
  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 the tool lists endpoints but doesn't mention if it's read-only, safe, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the output format looks like. This is a significant gap for a tool with zero 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 that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent 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 the tool's complexity is low (0 parameters), but with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the return values look like (e.g., list format, endpoint details) or behavioral aspects, leaving gaps for the agent to infer.

  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 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, and a baseline score of 4 is appropriate for this case as it avoids misleading or redundant information.

  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 ('List') and resource ('all available Kalendis API endpoints with descriptions'), making the purpose specific and understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'generate-api-routes', but the purpose is well-defined.

  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 like 'generate-api-routes' or other sibling tools. It lacks context about prerequisites, timing, or exclusions, leaving the agent without usage direction.

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

• generate-backend-clientB
  3.4/5.0
  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 mentions authentication but doesn't cover other important aspects like whether this is a read/write operation, what permissions are needed, what the output looks like (e.g., file generation), or any rate limits. The description is minimal and lacks behavioral 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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose 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.

  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 for a tool that generates code. It doesn't explain what the output is (e.g., a file, code snippet), how it's delivered, or any behavioral traits. The description alone is insufficient for understanding the tool's full 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 fully documents both parameters with descriptions and enum values. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, meeting the baseline for high 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 clearly states the specific action ('Generate a TypeScript client'), the target ('Kalendis API'), and the authentication method ('x-api-key authentication'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'generate-api-routes' and 'generate-frontend-client' by specifying it's for backend/direct API calls.

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

  Usage Guidelines3/5

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

  The description implies usage for generating a TypeScript client with specific authentication, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'generate-frontend-client' or 'generate-api-routes'. No explicit exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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