Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• boutique_searchA
  3.6/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds no new behavioral context beyond restating the search scope. It does not describe return format, pagination, or any operational characteristics, but given the strong annotations, this is acceptable.

  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, concise sentence: 'Search the MateMatic Boutique catalog for connectors and skills.' It front-loads the core purpose with no unnecessary words, making it easy to parse and appropriately sized for a straightforward search tool.

  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 comprehensive schema with parameter descriptions, the presence of an output schema, and clear annotations, the description is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's role. It doesn't explain return values (covered by output schema) or filters (covered by schema), and it adequately states the search scope. A slightly more detailed mention of multi-language support or filtering options could improve it, but it is not essential.

  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?

  All four parameters have detailed descriptions in the schema (query, limit, entry_type, jurisdiction), achieving 100% schema_description_coverage. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies as the schema already carries the full burden.

  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 'Search the MateMatic Boutique catalog for connectors and skills' clearly identifies the action (search) and the resource (MateMatic Boutique catalog), with scope limited to connectors and skills. It implicitly differentiates from sibling tools like boutique_get and boutique_whats_new through the verb 'search', though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

  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?

  No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The tool's name and description imply a search use case, but there are no mentions of alternatives or exclusions. The context of sibling tools suggests this is for finding items, but the description alone does not clarify when to prefer this over boutique_get or boutique_request_coverage.

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

• boutique_whats_newA
  3.6/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the temporal delta semantics but no additional behavioral caveats such as pagination or output size limits.

  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 sentence that is front-loaded and contains no redundant words. It effectively communicates the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration.

  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 low complexity (one optional parameter), strong annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description is mostly sufficient. It could be improved by explicitly contrasting with sibling tools, but the essential information for invocation is present.

  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% with a detailed description for since_date, including ISO format, default, and deterministic offline behavior. The tool description adds no new parameter information, so the baseline score of 3 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?

  The description states exactly what the tool does: lists additions and updates to the Boutique catalog since a specified date. The temporal scoping distinguishes it from siblings like boutique_search and boutique_get, which focus on search and retrieval rather than change history.

  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?

  The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies use for catalog changes since a date, but never mentions sibling tools or when another tool would be more appropriate.

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

• boutique_getA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  The annotations already declare the operation as safe (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive). The description adds value by detailing what the returned catalog card contains (e.g., 'names, descriptions and card URLs in every available language'), which is not covered by annotations. It does not disclose error behavior or rate limits, but the output schema covers return structure.

  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 immediately states the scope ('Full catalog card for one entry') and then enumerates the included fields. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or filler.

  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 single-parameter read operation with rich annotations and an output schema. The description clearly explains what the tool returns and is fully complete for an agent to select and invoke it correctly, especially given the sibling tools and parameter context.

  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 single parameter 'id' has 100% schema description coverage, including examples from boutique_search. The tool description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 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?

  The description starts with 'Full catalog card for one entry,' which clearly identifies a retrieval operation for a single catalog item. It lists the specific content fields (names, descriptions, card URLs, install command, version, license, source URL), making the tool's purpose concrete. This also distinguishes it from sibling boutique_search, which searches across entries.

  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 phrase 'for one entry' clearly indicates this tool is for fetching a specific catalog item, implying the user should already have an entry id. The schema further specifies id comes from boutique_search, but the description itself does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. Still, the context is clear enough for an agent to know when to use it.

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

• boutique_request_coverageA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  The description goes beyond the annotations by explicitly stating 'DRAFT ONLY', 'performs no network call', and 'submits nothing'. It also explains the human-review workflow and that submission happens via a returned URL. This is critical behavioral context that aligns with and enriches the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint 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?

  The description is concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. The separate line 'DRAFT ONLY - this tool performs no network call and submits nothing.' is a clear, high-impact warning. The additional sentence about human review and the returned URL provides necessary workflow context without unnecessary 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?

  For a tool with 2 parameters (1 required) and no nested objects, the description fully covers the tool's behavior, limitations, and follow-up action. Since an output schema exists, there's no need to describe return values. The description is complete for an agent to correctly invoke the tool and interpret its result, even with siblings present.

  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 input schema already provides full descriptions for both parameters ('what is missing...' and 'optional jurisdiction...'), so the schema coverage is 100%. The description itself does not add further parameter details, but it doesn't need to; the baseline 3 applies because the schema carries the heavy lifting and the description doesn't contradict or omit anything.

  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 drafts a coverage-request issue for a gap in the Boutique catalog, using a specific verb ('draft') and resource ('coverage-request issue'). It also distinguishes itself from the read-only sibling tools by explicitly noting it performs no network call and only creates a draft for human submission.

  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 implies usage when there is a gap in the catalog and clarifies the draft-only workflow, which tells the agent when to use this tool (for requesting new coverage) and what to expect (no actual submission). It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but the sibling tools are all read-only, so this tool stands out as the only one for creating a request.

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