Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• search_apiB
  3.1/5.0
  Behavior2/5

  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 that the search uses YApi's built-in search API and matches names/paths, but it does not mention whether this is read-only, require authentication, or return paginated/summarized results. For a search operation, important behavioral context like result limits or scoping is missing.

  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 that front-loads the main purpose and key behavioral detail (matching name and path). No fluff or repetitive content.

  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?

  For a simple search tool, the description gives enough to understand the core function, but gaps remain: projectId is unexplained, there is no mention of output format or error behavior, and confusion with sibling search tools is unresolved. Without an output schema, a bit more detail would improve completeness.

  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 only 50%; the keyword parameter has a description, but projectId is undocumented. The tool description adds no new meaning for keyword—it essentially repeats the schema's description. It provides zero explanation of projectId's purpose or constraints, so parameters remain unclear for half the inputs.

  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 clearly states the tool searches YApi interfaces by keyword, matching interface names and paths. This is a specific verb+resource+scope, and it distinguishes from list/detail siblings by focusing on keyword search. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling yapi_search_interfaces, which may serve the same purpose.

  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?

  Usage is implied: use this tool when you need to find interfaces by keyword rather than listing all or fetching details. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus the similar sibling yapi_search_interfaces, nor any mention of prerequisites or alternatives.

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

• yapi_search_interfacesB
  3.3/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it uses YApi's built-in search API and matches name/path, adding useful behavioral context. But it omits return format, pagination, or read-only confirmation.

  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?

  One concise sentence front-loads the core action and tacks on specific search scope. Every phrase earns its place.

  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?

  For a low-complexity search tool, the purpose and search scope are covered. However, without an output schema, projectId semantics, or usage guidance, there are notable gaps for an agent to invoke correctly.

  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?

  The description reiterates the keyword's meaning already in the schema but adds no new parameter semantics. The optional projectId parameter is undocumented in both the schema and the description.

  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 clearly states the tool searches YApi interfaces by keyword and specifies that it matches interface name and path. This differentiates it from list/detail siblings, though not from the sibling 'search_api'.

  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 the tool is for keyword-based search by stating '根据关键字搜索', providing clear context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when to prefer sibling tools like get_api_list or search_api.

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

• yapi_get_interface_detailB
  3.4/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the operation is a read ('获取') and mentions return content (request info, response structure), but does not clarify authentication needs, error behavior, or any limitations. This leaves significant behavioral aspects undisclosed.

  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 that front-loads the primary action and purpose. No wasted words; all content is relevant.

  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 simple single-parameter tool, the description adequately covers the main purpose and return content. However, the phrase '等完整内容' is vague and does not enumerate specific fields, and there is no output schema to compensate. Still, it is complete enough for basic usage.

  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% for the single 'id' parameter, which is already described as '接口 ID'. The description adds context by explaining it fetches by ID, but does not provide additional semantics 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 the tool's function: '根据接口 ID 获取 YApi 接口详情' (get YApi interface detail by interface ID), and specifies what it returns ('包含请求信息、响应结构等完整内容'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that list or search interfaces, though it does not explicitly differentiate from 'get_api_detail'.

  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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks explicit context such as 'use this after obtaining an ID from a list tool' or 'for listing use get_api_list'. The usage is only implied by the ID parameter.

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

• yapi_list_interfacesB
  3.4/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the environment variable fallback, but does not state whether the operation is read-only, requires authentication, or how results are returned. This leaves notable gaps for a list operation.

  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 concise sentences. The first sentence front-loads the primary purpose, and the second adds a useful parameter fallback note. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

  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?

  This is a simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema. The description covers purpose and parameter behavior, which is adequate for basic use. However, it omits details such as authentication requirements, error behavior, and return format, which would be needed for full completion.

  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 only provides the type and minimum for projectId, with no description. The description adds meaningful context by explaining that projectId is optional and falls back to YAPI_PROJECT_ID when omitted, including the precedence behavior. This goes beyond the schema.

  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 clearly states the tool retrieves the complete interface list for a specified YApi project, which is a specific verb+resource+scope. It distinguishes itself from detail and search siblings, though it does not explicitly differentiate from the similar-sounding 'get_api_list'.

  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 context: you use this to get all interfaces of a YApi project, with projectId optionally coming from an environment variable. However, it does not name alternative tools like search_api or provide explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance.

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

• get_api_detailA
  3.5/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the result includes request information and response structure, but does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation or address permissions, errors, or other behavioral traits.

  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, focused sentence that states the key information upfront without unnecessary words or repetition.

  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?

  For a simple single-parameter getter, the description includes some output details (request info, response structure) but lacks complete return value explanation or disambiguation from similar sibling tools. Given no output schema, the description could be more thorough.

  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 schema already provides 100% coverage for the single 'id' parameter with its description. The description only reinforces that the ID is used for lookup, adding no new semantic details beyond the schema.

  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 clearly states it retrieves YApi interface details by interface ID, specifying the resource and action. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'yapi_get_interface_detail', which appears to serve the same purpose.

  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 usage is implied: one should use this tool when they have an interface ID and need its details. There is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or mention of alternative tools, leaving differentiation to the agent.

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

• get_api_listA
  3.6/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It adds the environment variable fallback and the 'complete list' scope, but does not disclose response format, pagination, authentication, or side effects. For a read-only list tool the risk is low, but the description remains under-specified.

  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 compact sentence that conveys the tool's purpose and a key operational detail without any wasted words.

  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 simple list-with-optional-filter tool, the description covers what it returns, the project scope, and the fallback behavior. It lacks response structure details, but that is acceptable given no output schema and the straightforward nature of the operation.

  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?

  There is one parameter with 0% schema coverage, so the description compensates by noting projectId is optional and that YAPI_PROJECT_ID is used as a fallback. This adds useful meaning, but it does not elaborate on the parameter's type or source beyond the schema's exclusiveMinimum hint.

  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 clearly states the tool fetches the complete interface list for a specified YApi project, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from search/detail siblings by emphasizing completeness, though it does not explicitly contrast with the similarly named yapi_list_interfaces.

  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 clear context: use this tool when you need the full interface list for a project. It also clarifies the behavior when projectId is omitted, falling back to YAPI_PROJECT_ID, which guides invocation. It does not mention explicit alternatives or exclusions, so it stops short of a 5.

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