Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• check_pinme_statusB
  3.1/5.0
  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 the tool checks status but doesn't describe what the check entails (e.g., whether it verifies availability, returns metadata, or performs validation), potential errors, or any side effects. For a status-checking tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior and limitations.

  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 concise and front-loaded, consisting of two clear sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds parameter context without redundancy. It avoids unnecessary words and efficiently conveys essential information, though it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating purpose from usage notes.

  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 moderate complexity (status checking with two parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the status check returns (e.g., success/failure, deployment details), potential error conditions, or how it interacts with sibling tools. For a tool without structured output documentation, the description should provide more behavioral and result context to be fully helpful.

  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?

  The description adds minimal value beyond the input schema, which has 100% coverage. It mentions that status can be checked via 'CID 或 ENS URL' (CID or ENS URL), aligning with the schema parameters 'cid' and 'ensUrl'. However, it doesn't provide additional context such as parameter precedence (e.g., if both are provided), format details, or examples beyond what the schema descriptions already cover. With high schema coverage, the baseline is met but not exceeded.

  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: '检查 Pinme 部署状态' (check Pinme deployment status). It specifies the verb '检查' (check) and resource 'Pinme 部署状态' (Pinme deployment status), making the intent unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_deployments', which might also provide status information in a different format or scope.

  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 some usage context by stating '可以通过 CID 或 ENS URL 检查' (can be checked via CID or ENS URL), which implies this tool is for checking specific deployments identified by these parameters. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_deployments' (which might list all deployments without filtering) or 'deploy_to_pinme' (for deployment actions). The guidance is implied but not comprehensive.

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

• list_deploymentsB
  3.2/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states what the tool does without behavioral details. It doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, how results are returned (e.g., pagination, format), or any rate limits, which are critical for a list operation.

  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 with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.

  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?

  For a simple list tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but lacks completeness. Without annotations or output schema, it should ideally mention return format or behavioral traits to help the agent understand what to expect, but it only states the basic purpose.

  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 no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter information, but that's appropriate here, meeting the baseline for a parameterless tool.

  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 ('列出' - list) and resource ('已部署的项目' - deployed projects), making the purpose evident. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'check_pinme_status' or 'deploy_to_pinme', which appear related to deployment operations but have different functions.

  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. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, context (e.g., after deployment), or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the name and siblings alone.

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

• deploy_to_pinmeA
  4.1/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It describes the upload behavior and automatic directory detection, but doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what happens to existing deployments. The description adds some context but leaves gaps for a mutation tool.

  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 concise sentences with zero waste. First sentence states purpose and scope, second sentence explains the automatic behavior when parameter is omitted. Every word earns its place.

  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?

  For a deployment tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate basic information about what it does and parameter behavior, but lacks details about what happens after deployment (e.g., returns a URL? CID? success confirmation?), error conditions, or authentication requirements that would be needed for complete understanding.

  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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents the single parameter. The description adds marginal value by reinforcing the automatic detection behavior mentioned in the schema description, but doesn't provide additional semantic context beyond what's already in the structured data.

  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 ('upload to Pinme (IPFS)'), the resource types ('static websites, HTML files, or frontend projects'), and distinguishes from siblings by focusing on deployment rather than status checking or listing deployments.

  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?

  It provides clear context for when to use this tool (uploading static content to IPFS) and mentions automatic detection of build directories, but doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or compare it to sibling tools like check_pinme_status or list_deployments.

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