Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• dependency_graphA
  3.6/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description must bear the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It fails to mention whether the tool reads-only or modifies the repo, any permission requirements, or performance implications. The purpose is clear but operational context is missing.

  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 concise with two short sentences and a parameter list. It is front-loaded with the core action and avoids unnecessary words. Every sentence serves a purpose.

  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 moderate complexity and the presence of an output schema (not shown but indicated), the description adequately covers purpose and parameters. It could mention repository structure prerequisites (e.g., git repo) or behavior for unsupported languages, but overall it is sufficiently complete for an agent to use the 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?

  With 0% schema description coverage, the parameter explanations in the description are essential. They clarify 'path' as the repo path and 'language' as an auto-detection option with supported languages. This adds basic value, but could be more detailed (e.g., whether path must be a directory or file).

  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 maps internal module imports, identifies most-depended-upon modules, and finds circular dependencies. It distinguishes from siblings like architecture_overview (high-level structure) and hotspots (complexity analysis) by focusing specifically on dependency relationships.

  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 suggests using the tool to understand coupling, providing a clear use case. However, it does not specify when to avoid it or mention alternatives among siblings, leaving the agent to infer usage boundaries.

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

• hotspotsA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, safe to run, or any side effects. The behavior is implied to be analytical but not stated.

  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 concise: two sentences for purpose and a compact args list. Information is front-loaded and every part 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?

  Given the tool has only two optional parameters and an output schema (not shown), the description is sufficient for basic understanding. However, it does not cover edge cases or prerequisites, but is adequate for the tool's complexity.

  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 0%, but the description adds basic meaning for both parameters (path as repo path, top as count per category with default). This compensates partially, but lacks details like units or accepted formats.

  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 finds 'files most worth attention' and lists specific criteria (largest, most complex, most frequently changed, highest risk). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like architecture_overview, dependency_graph, and explain by focusing on file-level analysis.

  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 implies usage when needing to identify important files, but does not explicitly mention when not to use or compare with alternatives. Sibling tools are present but not referenced.

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

• explainA
  4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It clearly states the tool returns files, classes/functions, and dependencies. However, it does not mention whether the tool is read-only, requires permissions, or has any side effects.

  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 plus concise Args list. Front-loaded with the main purpose. No extraneous text.

  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?

  An output schema exists, so return value details are not needed. The description covers the core functionality. Could mention complementarity with siblings or scalability notes, but overall 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?

  With 0% schema coverage, the description adds minimal context: 'Reposit root' for path and 'Sub-path... to explain' for module. The defaults are noted in schema but no additional format or usage details are provided.

  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 states the tool performs a 'deep-dive' into a single folder or file, listing files, public classes/functions, and external dependencies. This distinguishes it from siblings like architecture_overview (high-level) and dependency_graph (dependencies only).

  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?

  No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description implies it's for detailed analysis of a single module, but does not compare with siblings or mention when not to use it.

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

• architecture_overviewA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It explains the path parameter behavior and defaults but does not disclose side effects, permissions, or safety (e.g., read-only nature). It adequately describes what the tool does but lacks explicit behavioral traits.

  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 concise, with a clear front-loaded purpose statement followed by an args section. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or fluff.

  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 a single optional parameter and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It covers what the tool does, how to use it, and relevant path behaviors. No additional context is needed for effective 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 coverage is 0% for the single parameter, but the description provides clear semantics: 'Repo path to analyze. Relative to the server's working directory (or MCP_ARCHITECT_ROOT if set). Defaults to the whole project.' This adds meaning beyond the schema's type and default fields.

  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 explicitly states the tool provides a 'high-level map of a codebase' including 'languages, frameworks, size, structure, and entry points.' It also suggests starting here for unfamiliar repos, which clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like dependency_graph, explain, and hotspots.

  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 advises to 'Start here to understand an unfamiliar repo,' giving clear contextual guidance. It does not explicitly list exclusions or when not to use, but the context is sufficient for an agent to infer appropriate usage.

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

• impact_analysisA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, description fully discloses behavior: walks import graph backwards, lists direct and transitive importers, flags high-risk hubs. However, does not mention potential performance implications for large graphs or that it is read-only.

  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?

  Description is very concise and well-structured. Opens with a question to engage, then explains functionality, usage recommendation, and parameter details. Every sentence is meaningful with no redundancy.

  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 that output schema exists (not shown but context indicates true), description covers inputs and behavior adequately. With 3 optional parameters and no annotations, it explains the tool's purpose and inputs well. Could mention that it is read-only or safe to run.

  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 coverage is 0%, so description adds significant value. It explains each parameter: target (module/file, default returns highest-impact modules), path (repo root), language (auto, python, js/ts). Provides examples and clarifies behavior when omitted.

  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?

  Description clearly states it walks import graph backwards to list importers and blast radius, and flags high-risk hubs. It is specific about the action (impact analysis) and resource (target module). Distinguishes from sibling tools like dependency_graph by focusing on backward analysis and change impact.

  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?

  Explicitly says 'Use before editing/refactoring a module.' Also mentions that omitting target returns highest-impact modules. Provides clear context but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when not to use.

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