Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• default_api_configB
  3.3/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions actions like 'set' and 'updateHeaders' but does not explain side effects (e.g., whether updates merge or overwrite), persistence, permissions, or error handling. This is insufficient 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.

  Conciseness4/5

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

  The description is a single sentence plus a list of examples, which is concise and front-loaded with purpose. However, the examples could be integrated more seamlessly, and there is minor redundancy (e.g., 'get config' repeats the action enum).

  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 complexity (7 parameters, nested objects, 8 actions) and no output schema, the description lacks completeness. It does not explain return values, behavior per action, or error handling. The schema covers parameters but the description fails to provide overarching guidance.

  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 input schema has 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for each parameter. The description adds examples but does not provide new semantic meaning beyond what is already in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

  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 is an 'API configuration management tool for managing API settings, endpoints, and configurations.' The examples list specific actions (get, set, updateBaseUrl, updateHeaders, search, list) which distinguish it from sibling tools like default_api_execute or default_api_debug.

  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 through examples but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No guidance on prerequisites, such as needing a configured API before using default_api_execute, is provided.

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

• default_api_debugA
  3.6/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Discloses auto content-type detection and flexible body support, but lacks warnings about security, potential side effects (e.g., write operations), or return format. With no annotations, the description carries the burden and is adequate but not thorough.

  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 front-loaded purpose and illustrative examples. No redundant or vague language.

  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 explanation of return value, error handling, or behavioral constraints (e.g., read-only vs mutating). Given no output schema and no annotations, the description leaves significant gaps for a debug tool.

  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 100% so baseline is 3. The description adds value by showing how parameters combine in real-world examples (e.g., query with GET, body with POST), beyond the schema's individual descriptions.

  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 executes API requests with auto-detection and flexible formats. It provides specific examples that illustrate usage with different methods and bodies, distinguishing it from siblings like config or execute.

  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 vs alternatives (e.g., default_api_execute). No mention of when not to use or prerequisites.

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

• default_api_executeA
  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 disclose side effects, permissions, and error handling. It mentions overrides but does not explain behavior like authentication requirements, rate limits, or response handling. Minimal disclosure.

  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: first states purpose, second shows concrete examples. No redundant words, front-loaded main action.

  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?

  Covers purpose, parameters, and usage via example. No output schema present, and description doesn't mention return value, but overall adequate for a simple execution tool with well-documented parameters.

  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 100% with clear descriptions for both parameters. The description adds value via an example showing override usage with method and body, which clarifies the nested structure beyond the schema.

  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 executes API requests by index from a configured list, with examples showing typical usage. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like default_api_config (configuration) and default_api_debug (debugging).

  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 (e.g., default_api_debug for testing, default_api_config for setup). The description simply says 'execute API requests' without specifying scenarios or prerequisites.

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

• default_api_loginA
  3.7/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Discloses automatic token extraction and header update, but no details on side effects or error handling; no annotations provided.

  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 efficient sentences front-loading purpose and key behavior with an example.

  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?

  Lacks specification of required environment variable names, error handling, and success/failure indicators.

  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 covers the single parameter well, and description adds context about overriding config baseUrl.

  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?

  Clearly identifies as an API login authentication tool and distinguishes from sibling tools like default_api_config or default_api_execute.

  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?

  Lacks guidance on when to use vs alternatives, no prerequisites or context about needing to call this before other operations.

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

• default_api_helpA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It correctly indicates the tool is purely informational (providing documentation/examples) with no side effects. While it doesn't explicitly state 'read-only' or 'no mutations', the nature of a help tool is transparent.

  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: the first states the purpose, the second gives usage guidance. No redundant words. Front-loaded and efficient.

  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?

  For a simple help tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is complete: it explains the tool's role and how to use it. It could briefly mention the format of returned help, but the current description is sufficient for its simplicity.

  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 coverage is 100% and the schema already provides a clear description and examples for the 'tool' parameter. The tool description mentions the same tool names but does not add new semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

  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 that the tool provides 'detailed documentation and examples' for specific sibling tools (api_debug, api_login, api_config, api_execute). It uses a specific verb ('provides') and resource, effectively distinguishing its purpose as a help resource.

  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 explicitly tells when to use the tool ('Use this to understand how to use ... tools effectively'), providing clear context. It does not mention when not to use or provide alternative tools, but the context is clear enough for a help tool.

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