Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• mcp_writeA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: data storage location ('mcp/' prefix), available tabs with usage examples, operation modes with parameter requirements, response format ('full_path'), and specific error conditions. It provides comprehensive operational context beyond basic functionality.

  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 clear sections (IMPORTANT note, Available tabs, Modes, Response, Errors) and front-loads critical information. Most sentences earn their place by providing essential operational details, though some redundancy exists (e.g., repeating 'use tab=' in tab descriptions).

  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 complex tool with 12 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides substantial context: operation modes, tab system, parameter requirements, response format, and error conditions. It covers most aspects needed for effective use, though additional details about authentication or rate limits could further enhance 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?

  With 83% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3, but the description adds significant value by explaining parameter usage in context: it maps modes to their required parameters (e.g., 'add: Params: tab, text, tags (optional), note (optional)'), clarifies tab usage with examples, and explains path parameter usage for workspace operations. This provides practical guidance beyond schema definitions.

  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 starts with a clear verb ('Write to') and resource ('CopyQ clipboard manager'), specifying it's for writing operations. It distinguishes from sibling tools mcp_read (reading) and mcp_validate (validation) by focusing on write operations, making the purpose specific and differentiated.

  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 provides clear context for when to use this tool (writing to CopyQ with data under 'mcp/' prefix) and explains tab usage scenarios. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or directly compare to alternatives like mcp_read, though the focus on writing implies usage for write operations rather than reading.

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

• mcp_validateA
  4.4/5.0
  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. It discloses key behavioral traits: it validates parameters without executing, checks for success, and returns validation results (valid/errors/warnings/estimated_tokens). This covers the core behavior well, though it could mention performance or rate limits for completeness.

  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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by clear sections for parameters and returns. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured.

  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 (validation without execution), no annotations, and no output schema, the description does a good job by explaining the purpose, usage, parameters, and return values. It could be more complete by detailing error handling or validation rules, but it covers the essentials adequately.

  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 both parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by listing parameters and their types, but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

  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 purpose: 'Validate parameters for mcp_read or mcp_write without executing.' It distinguishes this tool from its siblings (mcp_read and mcp_write) by emphasizing validation without execution, which is a clear differentiation.

  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 explicitly provides usage guidance: 'Use to check if a call will succeed before making it.' This tells the agent when to use this tool (before executing mcp_read or mcp_write) and implies an alternative (using the actual tools directly), making it clear in context.

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

• mcp_readA
  4.5/5.0
  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 access permissions (read/write for MCP tabs, read-only for external tabs), error conditions (TAB_NOT_FOUND, INDEX_OUT_OF_BOUNDS, INVALID_MODE), and operational modes. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, performance characteristics, or authentication requirements, leaving some behavioral aspects uncovered.

  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 clear sections (MCP tabs, External tabs, Modes, Parameters, Examples, Errors) and front-loaded essential information. While comprehensive, it could be slightly more concise by integrating some parameter details more tightly, but overall it's efficient with minimal wasted text.

  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 complexity (12 parameters, multiple modes, access rules) and lack of annotations/output schema, the description is largely complete, covering purpose, usage, parameters, and errors. However, it doesn't detail the return format or pagination behavior for list mode, and some parameters lack semantic explanation, leaving minor gaps for a tool of this complexity.

  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?

  With only 42% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by explaining the semantics of key parameters like mode, tab, scope, index, and query, including examples and usage context. It adds significant value beyond the schema, though it doesn't cover all 12 parameters (e.g., search_in, max_depth, include_text are mentioned only in 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 reads from the CopyQ clipboard manager, specifying the verb 'read' and resource 'CopyQ clipboard manager'. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on read operations (vs. mcp_write for writing and mcp_validate for validation), making the purpose specific and differentiated.

  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 guidance on when to use this tool, including detailed access rules for MCP vs. external tabs, scope options, and mode-specific use cases. It distinguishes from alternatives by specifying read-only access for external tabs and directing users to use specific modes for different tasks, with clear examples for each scenario.

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