Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• copy_to_clipboardD
  1.9/5.0
  Behavior1/5

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

  The description states a write operation ('copy to clipboard'), but annotations set readOnlyHint=true, which is a clear contradiction. No additional behavioral traits are disclosed beyond this inconsistency.

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

  Conciseness3/5

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

  The description is very short and front-loaded, but the single sentence provides minimal value. It is concise but lacks substance.

  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 simple clipboard tool, the description omits important context such as that it replaces current clipboard content or scope limitations (e.g., system vs. browser). Incomplete given the lack of output schema and parameter description.

  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 explain the 'text' parameter beyond its name and type from the schema. No guidance on text format, limitations, or effect.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose2/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description 'Copy text to the clipboard.' essentially restates the tool name 'copy_to_clipboard' without adding new information. It is a tautology and does not differentiate from siblings, though siblings are unrelated.

  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 or any prerequisites. The description lacks any 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.

• open_urlsC
  2.7/5.0
  Behavior1/5

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

  The description contradicts the readOnlyHint annotation; opening URLs in browser is a side effect, not read-only. No additional 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.

  Conciseness3/5

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

  Single sentence is concise but too minimal; could expand slightly without verbosity.

  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?

  Lacks details on error handling, behavior on empty list, whether it opens in new tabs, etc. Incomplete for a one-parameter tool.

  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?

  0% schema description coverage, and the description only mentions 'URLs' without specifying format, protocol, or behavior for invalid URLs.

  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?

  States clearly that the tool opens a list of URLs in the default browser, with a specific verb and resource. Different from siblings (clipboard, date, notification).

  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 vs alternatives, no exclusions or context provided.

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

• send_notificationA
  3.5/5.0
  Behavior1/5

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

  The description indicates a write operation ('Send', 'Displays') but the annotation declares readOnlyHint=true, creating a contradiction. No other behavioral traits (e.g., permissions, failure modes) are disclosed beyond the annotation's misalignment.

  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 well-structured with Args, Returns, and Examples sections, making it easy to parse. It is slightly verbose with repeated info (e.g., 'required' in Args), but overall concise relative to the content provided.

  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 description covers purpose, parameters, return value, and examples, which is adequate for a simple notification tool. However, it lacks error handling details and behavioral context, partly due to the annotation contradiction, reducing completeness.

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

  Parameters5/5

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

  With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter's role (e.g., 'title of the notification', 'message body', 'name of the application', 'Duration in seconds'). It adds defaults and examples, providing rich semantics beyond the schema's bare types.

  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 'Send a system notification' and 'Displays a native operating system notification', providing a specific verb and resource with cross-platform context. It is distinct from sibling tools like copy_to_clipboard, open_urls, etc.

  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 sending notifications but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions. Sibling tools are distinct, so ambiguity is low, but no direct guidance is given.

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

• get_current_date_infoA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true. The description adds value by listing return fields but does not disclose behaviors beyond that (e.g., caching, timezone source). With annotations, the bar is higher; description does not enrich beyond the read-only nature.

  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?

  Purpose sentence is front-loaded. The extensive list of return fields is informative but somewhat verbose. Could be more concise, but structure is clear.

  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?

  For a zero-parameter informational tool with annotations, the description thoroughly explains all return values. No output schema exists, so the description fulfills 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?

  No parameters exist, and input schema is empty with 100% coverage. Description does not need to add parameter info; baseline 4 applies.

  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 'Get comprehensive information about the current date' with a specific verb and resource. Siblings are entirely different (clipboard, URLs, notifications), so no confusion.

  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?

  No explicit 'when to use' or alternatives mentioned, but the tool is self-explanatory and siblings are unrelated, so usage context is clear implicitly.

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