Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get_operation_logsC
  2.4/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Get', implying a read operation, but does not mention any side effects, limitations, or prerequisites. The minimal description adds no transparency.

  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 (3 words) but under-specified. It does not earn its place because it adds no value over the tool name, making it too minimal for effective guidance.

  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 output schema and two parameters, the description should clarify the nature and scope of operation logs. It fails to do so, leaving ambiguity especially compared to sibling 'get_ddl_sql_logs'.

  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% with both limit and offset described. The description adds no parameter 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.

  Purpose3/5

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

  The description 'Get operation logs' restates the tool name, indicating a read operation on logs. It is clear but generic, failing to differentiate from sibling 'get_ddl_sql_logs' or specify what 'operation logs' entail.

  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 like check_permissions or get_ddl_sql_logs. The description offers no usage context or exclusions.

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

• get_ddl_sql_logsC
  2.8/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, and the description only states 'Get DDL SQL operation logs' without disclosing behavioral traits like read-only nature, authorization needs, error behavior, or output format. The description fails to compensate for the lack of annotations.

  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 (4 words) and no words are wasted. However, it is too concise and lacks necessary details, making it less useful than it could be.

  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 has no output schema and no annotations, the description is too brief to fully inform an agent. It does not explain what DDL SQL operation logs are, how they are filtered, or what the output looks like.

  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 for both parameters (limit, offset) with defaults and max constraints. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what is already in the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

  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 'DDL SQL operation logs'. It clearly identifies the tool's function and implicitly distinguishes from siblings like get_operation_logs by specifying DDL, though it does not explicitly differentiate.

  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, such as get_operation_logs or sql_query. There is no mention of prerequisites or context.

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

• sql_queryC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It mentions support for DDL (destructive) and DML (data modification) but fails to disclose potential side effects like table locking, long-running queries, or required permissions. This is insufficient for safe agent usage.

  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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently states the purpose. It is concise, but additional critical information (e.g., output format) is missing, preventing a higher score.

  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?

  Despite having only one parameter and no nested objects, the description lacks output schema details and fails to inform the agent about what the tool returns (e.g., rows, affected count). Sibling tools hint at related functionality, but the description is too sparse for a generic SQL executor.

  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 single parameter 'sql' is fully described in the input schema (100% coverage). The tool description does not add any additional semantics or constraints beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

  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 'Execute SQL query' and specifies support for DDL and DML operations, which distinguishes it from read-only or log retrieval sibling tools. However, it could be more precise about the exact types of SQL statements allowed (e.g., SELECT, INSERT, etc.).

  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 vs. siblings like check_permissions or get_database_info. There is no mention of prerequisites, authorization, or context such as needing to validate permissions before execution.

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

• get_database_infoA
  3.7/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It claims read-only behavior ('Get') but does not confirm idempotency, performance impact, or whether it can be called without side effects. No mention of authentication requirements or data freshness.

  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 concise sentence that front-loads the main purpose. Every word contributes meaning, and there is no redundancy or clutter.

  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?

  Although there are no parameters and no output schema, the description lists three categories of information. However, it lacks detail on the format or granularity of each (e.g., are database names just strings? Is configuration a key-value list?). For a tool with no other documentation, this leaves ambiguity.

  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 zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining the nature of the output (database list, table list, configuration). This compensates for the absence of parameter documentation, exceeding the baseline of 3.

  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') and resource ('database information'), and enumerates specific types of information returned (database list, table list, configuration info). It is distinct from sibling tools which focus on permissions, logs, and queries.

  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?

  No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies usage for retrieving general database metadata, but fails to specify conditions or when not to use it (e.g., for specific table schemas). Sibling tools are named but not contrasted.

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

• check_permissionsA
  4.1/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that readonly mode restricts to SELECT and SHOW, and returns detailed permission status. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or requires no special privileges.

  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, front-loaded with purpose, followed by a key detail. Every word earns its place; no redundancy or filler.

  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 no output schema, the description provides a high-level idea of the return value ('detailed permission status including readonly mode restrictions') but lacks specifics on format or full scope. It is adequate for a simple tool but could be more complete.

  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 the description adds meaning by explaining that the tool returns permission status including readonly restrictions. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description fulfills that.

  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 verb 'check' and resource 'database permissions', specifying operations like DDL, DROP, DELETE. It distinguishes from siblings like sql_query or get_database_info by focusing on permission status.

  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 use for checking permissions, especially regarding readonly mode, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives like sql_query or get_operation_logs. No when-not or alternative recommendations.

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