Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get_container_logsA
  4.2/5.0
  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 disclosing behavioral traits. It explicitly states 'READ-ONLY' and 'No side effects', and clarifies container resolution semantics. It does not mention error behavior or return format, but these are secondary for a log-fetching tool; the safety profile is well covered.

  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 extremely concise (three short sentences) and front-loaded with the critical 'READ-ONLY' flag. Every sentence adds value: purpose, resolution, and side-effect disclosure. No wasted words.

  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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description plus schema covers purpose, parameter semantics, and side-effect profile. The main gap is not mentioning the return format (e.g., whether logs are returned as a single string or an array of lines), but this is a minor omission given the tool's simplicity.

  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 the description adds little beyond what the schema already documents. It reinforces the container resolution method and the meaning of 'tail' as 'last N lines', but these are also present in the schema. This is a baseline 3 per the rubric.

  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 ('Fetch the last N lines of a container's logs') with a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes itself from siblings like list_containers and restart_container by focusing on log retrieval. The 'READ-ONLY' and 'No side effects' qualifiers further differentiate it from mutating tools.

  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: it is read-only, resolves containers by id-prefix or exact name, and fetches a configurable number of log lines. It does not explicitly mention when to use this instead of siblings or mention exclusions, but the context is sufficiently clear for an agent to infer appropriate use.

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

• list_containersA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses the read-only nature and lack of side effects, plus the default filtering behavior. This is transparent for a simple listing tool, covering key behavioral traits beyond what the schema offers.

  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 concise and front-loaded with 'READ-ONLY' and the core action. Every sentence contributes: purpose, default behavior, and side-effect declaration, with no unnecessary words.

  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 one-parameter listing tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, how to use the parameter, and the safety profile. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

  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 schema already provides 100% coverage for the 'all' parameter, and the description only restates the same behavior ('pass all=true to include stopped ones'). It adds no new meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

  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 'List Docker containers as a compact text table,' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like get_container_logs and restart_container by focusing on the listing action and output format.

  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 the tool (listing containers) and explains the default behavior (only running) without naming alternatives. It does not explicitly exclude or compare with sibling tools, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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

• pingA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explicitly discloses 'Read-only, no side effects' and the concrete output 'pong', giving full transparency for a tool of this simplicity.

  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 extremely concise, using three short statements that each convey essential information. There is no redundancy or filler, making it an exemplar of efficient writing.

  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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, this description is fully complete. It states the function, the return value, and the side-effect profile, covering all necessary bases for an agent to understand and invoke 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?

  With zero parameters, the schema is trivially covered. The description adds context by explaining the tool's purpose and output, which goes beyond the empty schema and meets the baseline for parameterless tools.

  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 'Health check' and specifies the exact return value 'pong'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that manage containers, as it is a general liveness probe.

  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 usage as a health check but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. It lacks direct comparison with sibling tools or conditions for 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.

• restart_containerA
  4.6/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the mutating nature, two-phase confirm flow, single-use token, 120-second expiry, and that the token is bound to the container. This is thorough and accurate, leaving little ambiguity about the tool's 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 compact (two sentences), front-loads the critical warning ('MUTATING: causes downtime'), and packs essential behavioral info without redundancy. Every word contributes meaningful guidance.

  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 no output schema or annotations, so the description must cover behavior. It explains the two-step flow, token constraints, and mutating nature. It does not detail error cases or the confirmation response format, but for a moderately complex tool, this is sufficient for an agent to invoke 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?

  Schema coverage is 100% and the schema already describes both parameters. The description adds meaningful context about the token's single-use, 120s window, and binding to the container, and clarifies the sequence (omit token to preview, then supply token to execute). This goes beyond the schema's basic 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 restarts a container, with 'MUTATING: causes downtime' highlighting its effect. It distinguishes from siblings (ping, list_containers, get_container_logs) by being the only mutating operation. The two-phase confirm flow is explicitly described.

  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 gives clear context: it is a mutating operation that causes downtime, and it details the exact two-step invocation (preview without confirmToken, then confirm with token). It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the warning implies it should only be used when downtime is acceptable.

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