Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• my-project-repo_get_operation_logsC
  2.6/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states what the tool does ('Get operation logs') without describing what the logs contain, their format, whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens when parameters are omitted. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is insufficient 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.

  Conciseness4/5

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

  The description is extremely concise at just 5 words, which is appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool. However, it's arguably too brief given the lack of behavioral context needed when annotations are absent. The structure is front-loaded with the core purpose but lacks supporting details.

  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 a description that only states the basic purpose, this is incomplete for effective tool usage. The agent needs to know what 'operation logs' contain, their format, how they differ from push history, and what the tool returns. The description doesn't compensate for the lack of structured metadata.

  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% description coverage with clear documentation of both parameters (limit and offset). The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema_description_coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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

  Purpose3/5

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

  The description states the tool's purpose as 'Get operation logs' which is a clear verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't specify what 'operation logs' contain or distinguish this from sibling tools like 'get_push_history' which likely retrieves similar historical data. The description is vague about the specific scope of operations being logged.

  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. There's no mention of when this should be used instead of 'get_push_history' or 'mgit_push', nor any context about what types of operations are included in these logs versus push history. The agent receives no usage differentiation.

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

• my-project-repo_get_push_historyA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the tool's behavior as retrieving 'the last 5 push history records', which implies a read-only operation, but does not disclose other behavioral traits such as error handling, rate limits, or authentication needs. The description adds some context about its role in a workflow but lacks details on operational constraints.

  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 three sentences long. The first sentence clearly states the purpose, but the second and third sentences are somewhat repetitive in emphasizing the tool's mandatory use before mgit_push. While front-loaded with key information, it could be more concise by combining the usage instructions into a single, streamlined sentence.

  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 complexity (simple read operation with no parameters) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is moderately complete. It explains the purpose and usage guidelines well but omits details on output format, error cases, or other behavioral aspects. For a tool with no structured data support, it provides a basic but incomplete picture.

  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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description does not add parameter information beyond the schema, but since there are no parameters, this is acceptable. A baseline of 4 is appropriate as the description compensates by explaining the tool's fixed scope ('last 5' records) without needing to detail 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 tool's purpose: 'Get the last 5 push history records for repository "my-project-repo"'. It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('push history records'), and scope ('last 5'), but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'my-project-repo_get_operation_logs', which might also retrieve logs but for different types of operations.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines5/5

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

  The description provides explicit usage guidelines: 'This tool MUST be called before using mgit_push to ensure the current changes have not been pushed before. After calling this tool, you can proceed with mgit_push.' It clearly states when to use it (before mgit_push) and references an alternative (mgit_push) for the next step, offering strong guidance on workflow integration.

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

• my-project-repo_mgit_pushA
  4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behaviors: the requirement to check push history first, the repository configuration via environment variable, language settings, and what to do with output (e.g., handling branch merge URLs). However, it doesn't mention potential side effects like overwriting data or error conditions, which would be helpful for a push operation.

  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 front-loaded with the core purpose but includes redundant sections (e.g., repeating usage steps and language requirements). Some sentences, like 'Language setting: en (default: en)' and 'Push history check is enabled (CHECK_PUSH_HISTORY=true)', could be condensed or integrated more smoothly. The structure is clear but not optimally concise.

  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 complexity (a push operation with preconditions), no annotations, and no output schema, the description does a good job covering usage steps, prerequisites, and output handling. It mentions sibling tools and environment configurations. However, it lacks details on error cases or what happens on failure, which would improve completeness for this type of tool.

  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 the schema already documents the single parameter 'message' with its type and example. The description adds minimal value beyond this, only restating that the commit message should be in English. It doesn't provide additional context like message formatting rules or constraints beyond what's in the schema.

  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: 'Execute mgit push command for repository "my-project-repo" with a commit message.' This specifies the verb (execute push command), resource (repository), and required input (commit message). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_push_history or get_operation_logs beyond mentioning they should be called first.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines5/5

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

  The description provides explicit, step-by-step usage guidelines: 'You MUST call get_push_history tool FIRST to view the last 5 push records before using this tool' and 'Confirm that the changes in this push have not been pushed before, otherwise modify the push message and push again.' It names the specific alternative tool (get_push_history) and includes clear prerequisites and conditions for use.

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