Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• find_components_without_propA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It specifies return values (list, file paths, line numbers) but lacks critical behavioral details like file types scanned, recursion behavior, performance implications, or error handling.

  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 sections for purpose, use cases, examples, and returns. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, though some information is slightly redundant (e.g., repeating purpose in examples).

  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 relatively simple tool, the description covers the main aspects: purpose, parameters (via examples), and return format. It is missing potential edge cases but overall is complete enough given no output schema.

  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. The description adds value with concrete examples (e.g., 'Select components without width prop') and usage patterns that go beyond what the schema alone provides.

  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 purpose with a specific verb 'Find component instances that are missing a required prop', and it is easily distinguished from siblings like 'analyze_jsx_props' and 'find_prop_usage' which focus on different aspects.

  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 includes a dedicated 'Use this tool when you need to' section with five explicit tasks, providing clear context. However, it does not mention when not to use it or explicitly compare to siblings, so it loses the top score.

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

• get_component_propsA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral aspects. It mentions the tool returns props, types, defaults, and usage statistics, but does not disclose if it scans recursively, performance implications, or error handling (e.g., missing component). Safe read-only behavior is implied but not stated.

  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 a clear purpose statement, usage bullets, examples, and a return summary. It is front-loaded and each section earns its place. The examples are helpful but could be slightly condensed.

  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?

  Despite lacking an output schema, the description adequately describes the return values (all props, types, defaults, usage statistics). It covers essential information for a simple analysis tool. Missing details about error states or edge cases prevent a higher score.

  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%, so both parameters (componentName, directory) are described. The description adds examples showing real usage but does not provide additional semantic meaning beyond the schema. Baseline score of 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 specifies the tool retrieves detailed prop information for a component, including types, defaults, and usage statistics. The verb 'get' and resource 'component props' are explicit, and the examples reinforce the purpose. It distinguishes from siblings like find_prop_usage and find_components_without_prop by focusing on complete prop details.

  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 lists concrete use cases (e.g., understand props, document APIs, check before using) which guide the agent effectively. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention direct alternatives, which slightly limits guidance completeness.

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

• find_prop_usageA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations provided, but the description explains that it returns file paths, line numbers, and values. It implies a read-only search operation without side effects. Could explicitly state read-only nature but overall good transparency.

  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 a main sentence, bulleted use cases, examples in JSON, and return info. It is slightly verbose due to examples but they are directly useful.

  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?

  With 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers usage, parameter behavior via examples, and return values. It adequately addresses the complexity and leaves no major gaps.

  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 descriptions, but the description adds practical examples and clarifies default for directory and filtering role of componentName. This adds meaning beyond the schema alone.

  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 'Find all usages of a specific prop across JSX/React files' which is a specific verb+resource combination. The examples and sibling tools (analyze_jsx_props, find_components_without_prop, get_component_props) show 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 Guidelines4/5

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

  The description lists explicit use cases ('Locate where a prop is used', 'Audit prop usage') and provides examples. It does not state when not to use but the context is clear enough for an agent to decide.

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

• analyze_jsx_propsA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description fully carries the transparency burden. It explains that the tool returns component names, props, types (when includeTypes is true), and file locations. The examples imply it is read-only and non-destructive. It does not mention permissions, rate limits, or edge cases, but for an analysis tool, the disclosure is adequate.

  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 well-structured with a clear purpose statement, bullet-point use cases, and five numbered examples. Every sentence provides unique information. The examples are particularly efficient at demonstrating parameter usage without verbosity.

  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 four parameters and no output schema, the description covers the tool's capabilities and expected output format. It explains what is returned (components, props, types, locations). It does not cover error scenarios or limit cases, but the examples and bullet points are sufficient for an agent to understand typical usage.

  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 each parameter is already described. The description adds significant value by providing concrete examples that illustrate how parameters interact (e.g., combining path with componentName or propName). This helps an agent understand the filtering behavior beyond the schema's static 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 analyzes JSX/React component prop usage across files and directories, with specific verbs and resource. The bullet points and examples distinguish it from siblings by emphasizing it as a general analysis tool that can filter by component or prop, while siblings like find_components_without_prop and get_component_props are more specialized.

  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 says 'Use this tool when you need to' and lists four bullet points covering common scenarios. It provides five concrete examples showing when to use different parameter combinations. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or how it differs from siblings, leaving some ambiguity about alternatives.

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