Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• describe_imageA
  3.7/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the local Ollama model and path semantics, but does not explain behavior around missing files, model limitations, or the purpose of mode/question parameters.

  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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage context and path semantics. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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

  Completeness2/5

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

  Although an output schema exists, the description omits crucial parameter semantics for `mode` and `question`, which directly affect tool behavior. Without these details, an agent cannot fully understand how to use the tool for specialized cases like OCR or diagram analysis.

  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?

  Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains only the `path` parameter ('absolute, or relative to the project directory'), leaving `mode` and `question` completely unexplained. This is a significant gap for a tool with three parameters.

  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 'Read a local image and return a text description from the local Ollama vision model.' This specifies the action, resource, and method, and distinguishes it from siblings like extract_text by focusing on generating a description rather than extracting text.

  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 explicit guidance: 'Use when the user references a screenshot or image you cannot see.' This gives a clear condition for use, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use.

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

• vision_statusA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  The description indicates a read-only status operation via 'Show', but does not disclose potential error behaviors, such as what happens if Ollama is not reachable, nor does it confirm side-effect-free operation. With no annotations, a bit more detail would be helpful.

  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 that directly states the tool's purpose. Every word earns its place with no fluff or redundancy.

  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 tool's simplicity (zero parameters, output schema present), the description adequately covers its purpose. However, it lacks any usage context or behavioral nuance (e.g., read-only nature, dependency on external services), which would make it fully complete.

  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 is no parameter semantics to explain. The description adds value by indicating what the tool returns (configuration, connectivity, models), which is sufficient for a no-parameter tool.

  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's function with a specific verb ('Show') and resource ('bridge configuration and Ollama connectivity / available models'). This distinguishes it from sibling image processing tools like describe_image and list_images.

  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 explicit guidance is given for when to use this tool versus alternatives. The purpose implies a status check, but the description does not state any prerequisites or conditions (e.g., 'Use when checking Ollama availability').

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

• extract_textA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states that OCR is used, that all visible text is extracted, and that output is verbatim, which are meaningful behavioral traits. It does not cover failure modes or image format limitations, but the core behavior is clearly disclosed.

  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 short sentences with no redundancy. The first sentence states the action and scope, and the second lists concrete use cases. 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 single-parameter tool with an output schema and no complex side effects, the description covers the essential operational context: what it does, when to use it, and the key behavioral constraint (verbatim OCR). It is not exhaustive but adequately complete for its low complexity.

  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 description coverage is 0%, but the only parameter is 'path' and the description's phrase 'from a local image' clearly establishes that path refers to a local image file. This compensates for the lack of schema documentation, though it does not specify path syntax or accepted formats.

  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 a specific verb and resource: 'Extract all visible text (OCR) from a local image verbatim.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like describe_image by focusing on text extraction rather than image description, and adds qualifiers ('all visible', 'verbatim') that make the scope precise.

  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 second sentence gives concrete use cases: 'Use for code screenshots, terminal output, or error dialogs.' This provides clear context for when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions relative to sibling tools.

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

• list_imagesA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral transparency. It discloses the default behavior of falling back to the configured inbox folder, which is valuable. However, it does not specify whether subdirectories are included, result sorting, or other behavioral traits, leaving some gaps.

  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 consists of two concise, front-loaded sentences. Every word adds value, with no fluff 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 listing tool with an output schema present, the description covers purpose, default behavior, and usage guidance. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to correctly select and invoke the 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?

  The schema describes the 'directory' parameter only as an optional string/null with no description. The tool description compensates by explaining that omitting the directory defaults to the configured inbox folder, adding meaningful semantic content 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 'List image files in a directory' with a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes from sibling tools by positioning this as a prerequisite for describe_image, making its purpose unambiguous.

  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 advises 'Use this before describe_image to find what is available,' giving a clear when-to-use instruction and a named alternative. This effectively communicates the intended workflow without needing to enumerate all siblings.

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