Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get_boardA
  3.6/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Annotations are not provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the read operation and what data will be returned, which implies a safe, non-destructive action, but it does not mention potential errors, authentication requirements, or any other side effects or behaviors beyond the read.

  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 reasonably sized and front-loaded: it immediately states the purpose, then provides essential parameter context, and lists the data returned. However, it includes some degree of detail that might be redundant given the output schema, but it still adds value.

  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?

  There is an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values in depth, but it does anyway. With only one parameter and a clear description of what the tool returns, the description adequately covers what an agent needs to call the tool correctly, though it could capably mention error cases or prerequisites.

  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 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining that project_id is an opaque node ID from list_boards and providing an example format (e.g., PVT_...). This adds meaningful meaning and helps the agent know what value to supply.

  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 reads one board and its contents, using a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('one board'). It distinguishes itself from list_boards by referencing how to obtain the project_id, but does not explicitly differentiate from board_summary. The phrasing 'opaque node id from list_boards' clarifies its relationship to a sibling tool.

  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 provides a clear context for usage by explaining that project_id comes from list_boards and giving an example format, but it does not explain when to use this tool versus board_summary or any exclusions. There is no explicit guidance on when not to use it.

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

• board_summaryA
  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 disclose behavior itself. It states the output shape (counts per column and total) and the cost advantage of the summarised result, which conveys a read-only style operation. It does not explicitly declare that it makes no modifications, but for a summarisation method that is safely implied, and no contradictions exist.

  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 crisp sentences; the action and output are front-loaded, and the cost/purpose rationale is a separate line. Every word earns its place, no fluff.

  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 summary operation with one required parameter and an output schema likely describing the counts, the description conveys the shape of the result and the intended use case. It lacks explicit guidance on how to obtain the project_id, but the tool's simplicity and the presence of list_boards among siblings make that omission minor. Overall it is sufficiently complete.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters2/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Input schema has one parameter, project_id, with 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not mention it or offer any constraints or format. Since schema coverage is low, the description was expected to compensate, but it does not; however, the parameter name 'project_id' is reasonably self-explanatory.

  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?

  States a specific verb 'Summarise' and resource 'board', precisely noting the output is 'counts per column, plus its total card count'. The 'Cheaper than the full card list' phrase differentiates it from sibling get_board, clearly marking it as an aggregation tool.

  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?

  Tells when to reach for it: when the question is 'where does the work stand?', because it is cheaper than the full card list. It does not explicitly name sibling tools nor state a when-not, but the rationale leaves no room for ambiguity that full-detail retrieval would be needed for anything beyond a summary.

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

• list_boardsA
  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 burden of explaining behavior. It discloses the source scope, that only tracked boards are returned, and the exact fields returned. It does not discuss pagination or ordering, but for a zero-parameter listing tool this 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 three short sentences with the main purpose first, followed by scope and return-value details. Every sentence adds useful information and there is no filler or repetition.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness5/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a simple zero-parameter listing tool with an output schema, the description covers what the tool does, what it includes, and what it returns. It even notes the id's role with get_board, so an agent has enough context to invoke and use the result correctly.

  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 no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to add beyond what the schema already makes obvious. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on outputs rather than invented parameter detail.

  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 uses a specific verb and resource ('List the GitHub Projects v2 boards the user tracks') and clarifies scope ('configured repository's account', 'every project source added on the board'). It also names the return fields and links the id to get_board, which distinguishes it from its siblings.

  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 clearly indicates when to use the tool: to list tracked boards and obtain their ids for later use with get_board. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or exclusion cases, but the intended use is clear from the context.

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