Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• search_mcp_serversB
  3.3/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering safety and scope. The description adds context about the search being 'free text' and targeting the 'Glama directory', but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or result format. No contradiction with annotations exists.

  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 front-loaded and every part contributes to understanding the tool's function.

  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's moderate complexity (search with pagination), annotations cover safety and scope, and schema covers parameters well. However, without an output schema, the description doesn't explain return values or result structure, leaving a gap in completeness for effective agent 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 parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description mentions 'free text queries', which aligns with the 'query' parameter but doesn't add significant meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles most documentation.

  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 ('Search for MCP servers') and resource ('in the Glama directory'), with the specific method 'using free text queries'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_mcp_server_attributes or get_mcp_server_details, which likely retrieve specific server details rather than searching a directory.

  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, prerequisites, or specific contexts for usage, leaving the agent to infer based on tool names alone.

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

• get_mcp_server_attributesA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, indicating a safe, read-only operation with potentially open-ended results. The description adds value by clarifying that the attributes are for filtering, which isn't covered by annotations. No contradiction exists, as 'Get' aligns with read-only behavior.

  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, clear sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, making it highly efficient and easy to understand.

  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's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema) and good annotations, the description is adequate but minimal. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on output format or how the attributes relate to sibling tools, leaving some contextual gaps for an agent.

  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?

  With 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description adds context by explaining the purpose of the output (attributes for filtering), which compensates for the absence of parameter details, justifying a score above the baseline of 3.

  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 ('Get available attributes') and the resource ('MCP servers'), specifying that these attributes are used for filtering. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_mcp_server_details' or 'search_mcp_servers' in terms of purpose, 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 Guidelines3/5

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

  The description implies usage context by mentioning 'attributes that can be used to filter MCP servers', suggesting this tool is preparatory for filtering operations. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'search_mcp_servers' or prerequisites, leaving room for ambiguity.

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

• get_mcp_server_detailsA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, indicating safe read operations and potential for unknown data. The description adds value by specifying the retrieval scope ('detailed information') and identification method, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like error handling, rate limits, or response format. With annotations covering safety, a baseline of 3 is appropriate as the description offers some context without rich behavioral details.

  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 front-loads the core purpose ('Get detailed information') and includes essential specifics ('about a specific MCP server by namespace and slug'). There is no wasted text, and every word contributes to clarity, making it appropriately sized and well-structured.

  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 low complexity (2 required parameters, no output schema), the description is mostly complete. It clearly states the purpose and parameters, but lacks details on return values (e.g., what 'detailed information' includes) and error cases. With annotations providing safety context, it's adequate, though could be slightly enhanced for full 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%, with clear descriptions for both parameters (namespace and slug). The description adds marginal value by reinforcing the purpose of these parameters ('by namespace and slug') but doesn't provide additional semantics beyond what the schema already documents, such as format constraints or examples. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema handles most of the parameter documentation.

  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 ('Get detailed information') and resource ('about a specific MCP server'), with precise identification criteria ('by namespace and slug'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'search_mcp_servers' (which likely returns multiple servers) and 'get_mcp_server_attributes' (which might return specific attributes rather than comprehensive details).

  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 context by specifying 'by namespace and slug,' suggesting this tool is for retrieving details of a known, specific server. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like 'search_mcp_servers' (for unknown servers) or 'get_mcp_server_attributes' (for partial data), nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions, leaving some guidance gaps.

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