Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• xserver_getA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description's mention of 'read-only GET' and 'Writes not supported' adds little behavioral insight beyond what is already provided. The description does not contradict annotations, but it does not add significant new behavioral context.

  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 two sentences, front-loaded with the tool's core purpose, and every sentence is necessary. There is no redundancy or fluff.

  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?

  Given the tool's low complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, strong annotations), the description provides all essential context: base URL, relative path, example, scope (uncovered endpoints), and restrictions (no writes). It is fully adequate for the tool's purpose.

  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%, covering both 'path' and 'query' parameters. The description adds valuable context: the path is 'relative to the API base (https://api.xserver.ne.jp/v1)', with an example path '/server/xs123456.xsrv.jp/cron'. It also clarifies that query parameters are optional and that the path can accept a full URL. This meaningfully supplements the 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 issues 'an arbitrary read-only GET against the XServer API' for endpoints not covered by other tools. It uses specific action verb 'issue' and resource 'read-only GET', and distinguishes from sibling tools by stating 'when a specific endpoint is not covered by the other tools'.

  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 guidance: 'Use this when a specific endpoint is not covered by the other tools.' It also specifies what not to use it for: 'Writes (POST/PUT/DELETE) are not supported by this server.' This gives clear context and alternatives.

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

• xserver_server_statusA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations indicate readOnlyHint and openWorldHint; description adds specific resource metrics (disk quota, file counts, domain counts) not in schema, providing helpful behavioral context beyond annotations.

  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 sentences: first defines what the tool does, second gives concrete query examples. No fluff, front-loaded, every sentence 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?

  No output schema exists, but description lists returned data categories (metadata, disk usage, counts of various items). Missing exact output format but sufficient for agent to infer structure.

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

  Parameters5/5

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

  Schema coverage is 100%, but description adds value by explaining default resolution: 'Defaults to XSERVER_SERVERNAME, or is resolved from GET /me.' This clarifies optional parameter behavior beyond the 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 it fetches server status with metadata and resource usage. The title corroborates. It distinguishes from sibling tools like xserver_endpoints or xserver_account_info by specifying health/resource monitoring.

  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?

  Provides explicit example queries ('how is my server doing', 'how much disk is left') indicating appropriate use cases. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use, but examples are clear enough.

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

• xserver_account_infoA
  4.7/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  Annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint) are consistent with description. Description adds that it uses the configured API key and is a GET request, aligning with read-only 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?

  Two sentences: first describes what it does, second gives usage guidance. No fluff, all information is relevant and well-structured.

  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?

  Tool has no parameters or output schema. Description covers purpose, API endpoint, returned fields, and usage context (first use, key confirmation). Complete for this simple tool.

  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?

  No parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. Description doesn't need to add parameter details. Baseline 4 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?

  Clearly states it fetches contract and account info. Lists specific fields (service type, expiry date, server name, permission type) and the endpoint (GET /me). Distinguishes from siblings focused on endpoints or server status.

  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?

  Explicitly recommends using this first to confirm the key works and discover the server name. Provides clear context for when to use, though doesn't explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives.

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

• xserver_endpointsA
  4.9/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description details how status markers are determined (verified, unavailable, likely based on probing), adding behavioral context.

  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?

  Three concise sentences, purpose first, no redundancy. Every sentence adds value.

  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?

  Despite no output schema, the description explains what is returned and its interpretation, making it complete for a zero-parameter tool.

  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?

  No parameters exist, so baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter info but that's unnecessary; it focuses on output semantics.

  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 explicitly states 'List the XServer API endpoints this server knows about, with a status marker' and explains the status values, which clearly defines the tool's purpose and differentiates it from siblings like xserver_get.

  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 direct guidance: 'Use this to pick a path for xserver_get,' telling the agent when and why to use this tool before xserver_get.

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

• xserver_listA
  4.9/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint), specifies required query parameter for access-log and error-log, documents unavailable paths, and describes error recovery pattern.

  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?

  Concise, front-loaded with core purpose, then lists resources, special requirements, unavailable paths, and fallback advice. Every sentence is necessary.

  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?

  Covers purpose, parameter constraints, unavailable resources, and error handling. No output schema, but response structure is implied by 'list' operation. Sufficient for correct invocation.

  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 covers all parameters (100%). Description adds value by listing allowed resource values (though not as enum) and clarifying when query is required (for access-log and error-log).

  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?

  Clearly states it lists per-server resources and enumerates available ones, distinguishing from siblings like xserver_get (which gets by exact path) and xserver_endpoints (which discovers endpoints).

  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?

  Explicitly lists available resources and those that are not available (returned 404). Provides alternative guidance: on unexpected 404, call xserver_endpoints then xserver_get.

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