Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• drone_list_buildsC
  2.1/5.0
  Behavior1/5

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

  No annotations exist, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as pagination (despite page/limit parameters), filtering, rate limits, or side effects. The agent cannot anticipate behavior beyond a simple list.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness2/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is extremely concise (one sentence) but under-specified. While it has no filler, it fails to provide essential context, making it insufficient for effective tool usage.

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

  Completeness1/5

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

  Given 7 parameters (2 required), 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is woefully incomplete. It lacks information on pagination, filtering, ordering, and return format, leaving the agent underinformed.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters1/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries full burden to explain parameters. It does not define owner, repo, page, limit, prNumber, sourceBranch, or targetBranch. The agent must guess their semantics from names alone.

  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 the resource 'builds for a repository', indicating a list operation. It is sufficiently specific to distinguish from sibling tools like drone_get_build (singular fetch) and drone_list_repos (list repositories). However, it lacks detail on scope or filtering.

  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 usage guidelines are provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool over alternatives, typical contexts, or prerequisites such as requiring owner and repo parameters. The agent must infer usage from the parameter schema alone.

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

• drone_get_buildC
  2.7/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It only implies a read operation but fails to mention any side effects, authentication requirements, or error handling (e.g., if build not found). The agent gets no safety information.

  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?

  The description is a single sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded with the core action. However, it could be slightly more informative without becoming verbose.

  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 three required parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not describe the return value, pagination, or how to interpret the result. Sibling tools exist but no guidance on selection.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters2/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'build number' but does not explain the owner and repo parameters. The description adds no semantic value beyond the schema's parameter names.

  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 states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'one build details' with the method 'by build number.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like drone_get_build_logs. However, it omits mentioning that owner and repo are required parameters for identification.

  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 siblings such as drone_list_builds or drone_get_build_logs. The description does not specify prerequisites or context for use.

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

• drone_get_build_logsC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as permissions required, rate limits, or behavior when logs exceed limitChars. The agent has no insight beyond the basic function.

  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?

  Extremely concise at 8 words, front-loaded with the core purpose. While terse, it avoids fluff, but could be slightly expanded with minimal cost to conciseness.

  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 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the return format, pagination (if any), or how to interpret logs, leaving the agent with many unknowns.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters2/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 0% and the description does not add meaning to any of the 6 parameters. Parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but no details on constraints (e.g., limitChars default, maximum) or format are given.

  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 action (Get logs) and the specific resource (one build stage/step), distinguishing it from sibling tools like drone_get_build which likely returns build metadata.

  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 this tool versus alternatives. Does not mention prerequisites (e.g., need build number) or conditions where this tool is appropriate.

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

• drone_list_reposC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only says 'visible to the Drone token', omitting details on pagination, authentication, rate limits, or data returned.

  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?

  The description is a single concise sentence that gets to the point, though it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness.

  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, no output schema, and simple parameters, the description is too sparse. It lacks context about pagination, token scoping, or the structure of returned data.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters2/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema parameter coverage is 0%, yet the description does not explain the 'page' and 'limit' parameters. It adds no value beyond the raw schema, failing to compensate for low 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 'List repositories visible to the Drone token' with a specific verb and resource, and it distinguishes from sibling tools that list builds or get builds.

  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 this tool versus alternatives like drone_list_builds. The description merely states what it does without any contextual hints or exclusions.

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

• drone_get_cached_build_stateB
  3/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It mentions caching and conditional results, but does not address side effects, permissions, rate limits, or staleness beyond the term 'cached'. The lack of annotation burden means more detail is needed.

  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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action and a key conditional. No wasted words.

  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 4 parameters (2 required), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It omits details on limit, return format, and what constitutes 'recent snapshots'. A tool of this complexity needs more context.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters2/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 0%. Only buildNumber is indirectly explained via the conditional phrase. Owner, repo, and limit are not described. The description fails to add meaning to most parameters.

  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 'Read' and the resource 'webhook-cached build state', distinguishing it from sibling tools like drone_get_build (which likely retrieves live build state). It also explains behavior when buildNumber is omitted.

  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 provides a conditional usage hint regarding buildNumber, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings or any prerequisites. It gives implied context but lacks clear guidance.

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

• drone_pingA
  3.6/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations exist, so the description must carry the full burden. It only says it's a diagnostic tool but does not describe what it actually does (e.g., what it pings, expected response, side effects). The behavioral transparency is very low.

  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, front-loaded sentence with no extraneous words. It efficiently conveys the tool's 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 simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description captures the essential purpose. However, it omits what the tool returns or how to interpret results, which would be useful for completeness.

  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 zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. Per guidelines, baseline is 4 for 0 params. The description does not add param info, but no param info is needed.

  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 it's a 'minimal diagnostic tool for MCP client compatibility checks,' specifying the verb ('diagnostic'), resource ('MCP client compatibility'), and scope. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools that focus on builds and repos.

  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, nor is there any mention of prerequisites or context for its use.

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