Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get_godot_class_memberA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description reveals meaningful behavior: overloaded constructors/operators can lead to multiple matches, and an incorrect name returns the closest declared members, often exposing the 3.x-to-4.x rename. This extra context is valuable for interpreting results and handling ambiguous cases.

  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 sentences with every sentence earning its place: it states the primary behavior, gives the concrete use-case with version mismatch, and warns about overloads and error behavior. It is concise and front-loaded.

  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?

  With an output schema present, the return values are already documented. The description adds the only important context missing from structured fields: the version-confliction motivation, overload ambiguity, and the diagnostic behavior when a name is wrong. This makes the description functionally complete for the tool's simple lookup purpose.

  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 description coverage is 100%, and each parameter already has a clear description with examples. The tool description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 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 opens with the specific verb-object pair 'Return the exact signature and full description of one member of one class,' making the tool's purpose immediately clear. The phrase 'one member of one class' implicitly distinguishes it from class-level lookups like get_godot_class, so an agent can separate it from siblings.

  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 explicitly tells when to use the tool: 'confirm a signature before writing a call,' specifically because Godot's 3.x and 4.x APIs differ. It does not name the alternative tools for 'when not to use it,' but the when-to-use guidance is concrete and actionable.

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

• search_godot_code_examplesA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations indicate read-only, non-destructive behaviorni. The description adds that results carry language tag, URI, and heading, which gives the agent context about what to expect in results (though the output schema likely also documents this). It doesn't mention any side effects or limitations, but for a search tool that's fine. The annotation covers safety, so the description adds marginal value about result content.

  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, front-loaded with purpose, then usage guidance. Efficient and clear.

  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?

  The description covers purpose, what results contain, and when to use this tool vs the sibling. With output schema present and full schema coverage, this is complete for the agent to decide and invoke 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?

  Schema coverage is 100%, meaning all parameters (limit and query) have descriptions. The description itself doesn't add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides)Skip. So baseline 3.

  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 opens with a specific verb ('Search') and a precise resource ('runnable code examples extracted from the documentation'), and immediately differentiates from the sibling search tool by stating the intended use case (working code vs. explanations). This makes the tool's purpose unmistakable.

  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 states when to use this tool ('when working code is wanted') and when to use the alternative ('use search_godot_docs when an explanation is wanted'). This clearly guides the agent to choose between siblings.

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

• get_godot_classA
  4.7/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  The description discloses behavior such as returning a map, potential truncation, and omission of inherited members. Combined with readOnlyHint=true annotation, the read-only nature is clear. No contradiction with annotations; description adds valuable context beyond the hints.

  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 well-structured, using three sentences to convey purpose, usage guidance, and edge cases (truncation, inherited members). No redundant wording; each sentence earns its place.

  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 output schema exists, the description adequately explains the return type (map) and how to interact with the results (select a member, follow inheritance_chain). It also covers the truncation scenario. The tool is fully understandable within its 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?

  Schema covers all parameters (class_name and include) with clear descriptions. The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond what is already in the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate given 100% schema coverage.

  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 returns a map of one engine class, including inheritance, purpose, and member signatures without descriptions. It distinguishes itself as the 'cheap first call' for class questions, differentiating from siblings like get_godot_class_member and search_godot_docs.

  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 advises when to use this tool (first call for any class question) and when to use alternatives (get_godot_class_member for member details, request inherited classes from inheritance_chain). It also explains the truncation behavior and how to follow up with include parameter.

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

• search_godot_docsA
  4.7/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  ReadOnlyHint already covers the read-only nature. The description adds valuable behavior details: output fields (uri, class_name, member_name) and the handling of limit reductions. Slightly more detail could be given about ranking, but overall transparent.

  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?

  Every sentence contributes: search scope, usage direction, query example, output fields, and limit caveats are all packed without redundancy. The description is long but efficient.

  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 search nature and relationship to sibling tools, the description fully covers what results look like, how they map to sibling tools, and edge cases (limit reduction). No gaps 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 descriptions are thorough for all three parameters, including nuances like plain words for query, restriction by kind, and limit behavior (reduction to 50, size cap). The description reinforces these but does not introduce entirely new meaning 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?

  States a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('Godot documentation'), and explicitly mentions it is for when the exact class or page is not known, distinguishing it from sibling tools that fetch specific docs.

  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?

  Provides explicit direction: 'Start here whenever the exact class or page is not already known.' Includes example of natural-language query and notes that framing words are stripped, guiding the agent on appropriate queries.

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

• fetch_godot_docA
  5/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses important behaviors: pages are truncated to fit the response budget, truncated indicates this, and section_titles lists acceptable section values. It also explains the meaning of the #... suffix and how section overrides it, which is valuable context not visible in the schema.

  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 dense but every sentence carries necessary operational information. It front-loads the core purpose, then explains uri semantics, truncation handling, and sibling differentiation without wasted 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 documentation-fetching tool with a read-only annotation and an output schema, the description covers all needed calling context: source of the uri, section selection, truncation behavior, and the boundary with get_godot_class. Nothing essential is missing.

  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?

  Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds significant meaning beyond the schema: it explains how to pass the uri exactly, what the #... suffix does, how to drop it for the whole page, and how section interacts with the uri. This goes well beyond the baseline for high schema coverage.

  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 and resource: 'Return one manual or tutorial page as Markdown, or a single section of it.' It also distinguishes itself from get_godot_class by explicitly saying this tool serves prose documentation only, so an agent can tell it apart from siblings.

  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?

  It gives explicit instructions on when to use the tool: pass the uri from a search hit exactly, drop the #... to read the whole page, and use section to read truncated content section by section. It also names the alternative get_godot_class for class-reference entries, providing clear routing guidance.

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