Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• list_destinationsB
  3.3/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description fails to disclose key behavioral traits such as whether the tool is read-only, requires authentication, or has side effects. Listing destinations is implied to be safe, but this is not explicitly stated.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness4/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is concise with two sentences, front-loaded with the main action. Could be slightly improved by merging, but overall efficient.

  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?

  The description lacks details about the output format (e.g., list of scope IDs) and how the results relate to sibling tools like move_item. Given no output schema, more context was needed to be fully complete.

  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 baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema already provides.

  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 lists valid destination scopes for a specific item, indicating where it can be moved to. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like move_item, providing specific verb+resource clarity.

  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 before move_item but lacks explicit guidance on when to use or not use this tool. It does not mention any prerequisites or alternatives beyond the sibling context.

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

• move_itemA
  3.7/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action (move) without explaining side effects, permissions, error handling, or success/failure indicators. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient disclosure.

  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 very concise: two sentences that front-load the purpose and then give a key usage hint. No unnecessary words or repeated information.

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

  Completeness3/5

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

  Given the complexity (4 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the basic action and prerequisite but omits details about return values, error conditions, or what happens after the move. Adequate but with clear gaps.

  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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra parameter-level detail, but it does provide context that IDs come from scan_inventory. The schema already defines each parameter clearly.

  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 moves a configuration item between scopes, using the verb 'Move' and specifying the resource as 'Claude Code configuration item'. It distinguishes itself from siblings like delete_item or scan_inventory by describing a unique action.

  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 advises running 'scan_inventory first to see available items and scope IDs', providing a clear prerequisite and usage context. However, it does not specify when not to use the tool or list alternatives, which would be valuable.

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

• scan_inventoryA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool scans and returns data, implying a read-only operation, but does not explicitly say it is non-destructive, require any permissions, or explain side effects. The mention of scope (Global and Project) adds useful context, but more could be added.

  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, with the purpose front-loaded and a clear list of returned items. Every word adds value; there is no redundancy or filler.

  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 absence of parameters, annotations, and output schema, the description provides a reasonable account of what the tool returns and the scopes it covers. However, it could be more complete by stating whether the tool is read-only, if it requires any authentication, or if it has performance implications.

  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 tool has zero parameters, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description does not need to add meaning beyond the schema, which is trivially complete. Baseline for zero parameters is 4, and no additional info is required.

  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 scans all Claude Code configurations across Global and Project scopes, and lists the specific items returned (Skills, Memories, etc.). This is a specific verb+resource with enough detail to distinguish from siblings like delete_item or audit_security.

  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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or when not to use it. Siblings are listed externally but not referenced.

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

• delete_itemA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Delete', conveying irreversibility implicitly, but lacks explicit warnings about consequences, required permissions, or whether deletion is permanent. This is insufficient for a destructive tool.

  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, zero waste. The purpose is stated first, followed by a critical prerequisite. Perfectly concise and front-loaded.

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

  Completeness3/5

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

  The description covers purpose and a key prerequisite, but for a delete operation it lacks details on irreversibility, expected return value, permissions, and error handling. Given the simple parameter set and no output schema, the description is adequate but not 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 schema already describes all three parameters thoroughly (100% coverage). The description adds value by explaining where to obtain name and scopeId values ('as shown in scan_inventory results'), which is meaningful guidance beyond the schema alone.

  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 'Delete a Claude Code configuration item' with a specific verb and resource. It also directs to run scan_inventory first, which helps distinguish this deletion tool from sibling tools like move_item or list_destinations.

  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 the agent to run scan_inventory first to see available items, providing clear context for when to use this tool. However, it does not mention when not to use it or any alternatives, but for a delete operation this is sufficient.

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

• audit_securityA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It details connections, retrieval, pattern-based detection for multiple threat types, and output with severity and baseline comparison. It is transparent about being a read-only scan, though it does not explicitly state it is non-destructive.

  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 pack all necessary information: purpose first, then method and output. No redundant words, well-structured and front-loaded.

  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 complexity and lack of output schema, the description covers scope, actions, threats, and output type. However, it could be more specific about the structure of findings and what 'baseline comparison' entails.

  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?

  Input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 per instructions. The description explains the tool's operation without needing parameter details, and the schema coverage is 100% by default.

  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?

  Description clearly specifies the verb 'scan', resource 'all MCP servers', and purpose 'for security vulnerabilities'. It distinguishes effectively from sibling tools like delete_item or move_item, which handle item operations.

  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. The intended use is implied from the description, but no alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer context.

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