Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• server_stopA
  3.6/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond the verb 'Stop'. It does not clarify consequences such as terminating active sessions or clearing server state. There is no contradiction with annotations, but the description relies entirely on structured metadata.

  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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It names the action and the target directly, and every word earns its place.

  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 zero-parameter destructive action with annotations covering safety and an output schema present, the description is sufficient for basic invocation. It is slightly thin on operational context such as behavior when the server is already stopped, but that is not necessary for calling the tool 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 accepts zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The baseline of 4 applies because the description cannot add meaning beyond the empty 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 states a precise action ('Stop') and the exact target ('configured local open.mp test server'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools server_start and server_status, which have complementary purposes.

  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 given on when to use this tool versus server_start or server_status. The description only states the action and target, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name and siblings rather than from explicit instructions.

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

• server_statusA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safe read-only nature is covered. The description adds the 'local' and 'process status' scope, but does not provide additional behavioral detail such as what exactly the status output contains or whether it might throw errors if no server is running. With the output schema present, the agent can likely infer return structure, so the description adds minimal but acceptable value.

  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?

  A single, front-loaded sentence delivers the essential meaning with no filler. It names the resource and the type of operation without unnecessary elaboration.

  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 no-parameter, read-only status tool with an output schema present, the description is complete enough to guide correct invocation. There are no prerequisites, options, or alternatives that need clarifying beyond what the summary already provides.

  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?

  There are zero parameters, so the description has no parameter meaning to add. The baseline for no-parameter tools is 4, and there is no relevant gap to compensate for.

  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 ('Return') and a clear resource ('local open.mp test server process status'), making the tool's function immediately obvious. It also differentiates itself from siblings server_start and server_stop by describing a read-only status check rather than a state-changing operation.

  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 implies the tool is for checking status rather than starting or stopping the server, which are the sibling operations. It does not explicitly state 'use this when you need to check status and not start/stop', but the context and naming make the intended use clear.

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

• server_startA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already cover idempotency (idempotentHint=true), read-only status (readOnlyHint=false), and destructiveness (destructiveHint=false). The description adds the 'wait for readiness' behavior, which is beyond what annotations provide, giving the agent a clear expectation of the tool's runtime behavior.

  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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes meaning: 'start', 'configured local open.mp test server', and 'wait for readiness' are all necessary and sufficient.

  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?

  This is a simple tool with no parameters, an output schema, and annotations covering idempotency and safety. The description fully covers the intended action and readiness behavior, leaving no critical gaps for an agent to call it 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 input schema has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to document. Per the baseline for 0 params, a score of 4 is appropriate; the description doesn't need to compensate for schema gaps.

  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 states a specific verb ('Start') and resource ('configured local open.mp test server') and adds 'wait for readiness' as a behavioral outcome. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings server_stop and server_status through action and intent.

  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 start action and readiness wait make the context obvious: this is for bringing the server up. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not conditions, but the sibling names and the verb provide clear contextual guidance.

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