Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• mcp_callB
  3.2/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Discloses retry behavior once on crash, which is useful. But with no annotations, the description does not mention side effects, permissions, or whether the operation is destructive. The retry detail is positive but incomplete.

  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 with no waste. The main action and key behavior (retry) are front-loaded. Every sentence serves a purpose.

  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?

  With no output schema and subjective complexity medium, the description omits important context: what happens if the server is unreachable, what the return value is, and any rate limits or error handling details. Only minimal forwarding and retry are covered.

  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 schema already describes all parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

  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 forwards a tool call to a child MCP server and retries on crash. It uses a specific verb and resource, but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like mcp_execute or mcp_discover.

  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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks context about prerequisites, alternatives, or scenarios where this tool is preferred.

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

• mcp_provisionB
  3.3/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations provided, so description must fully explain behavior. It mentions intent-based provisioning but lacks details on side effects (e.g., resource creation, persistence), permissions required, or potential destructive actions.

  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?

  Single sentence is concise and front-loaded with core purpose. However, for a provisioning tool, it may be too terse, lacking necessary detail.

  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?

  With only 3 simple parameters and no output schema, the description is too brief for a provisioning action. It does not describe return values, success indicators, or consequences, leaving the agent to infer too much.

  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 baseline is 3. Description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema descriptions; no examples or clarifications on intent format.

  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 states it is for provisioning servers based on intent ('Describe what you need, MetaMCP resolves and provisions the right server'). Distinct from siblings like mcp_discover or mcp_call which focus on discovery or execution.

  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 guidance on when to use vs alternatives. Usage is implied: for provisioning when you know the desired capability. Lacks exclusion criteria or prerequisites.

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

• mcp_executeA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations provided, so description shoulders full burden. It discloses sandboxing, async/await, sleep, and server access, but omits details like error handling, return value format, persistence, or side effects.

  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, every sentence adds value. No redundant or extraneous information.

  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?

  Lacks critical details for a code execution tool: what is returned (execution result), restrictions (network, filesystem), lifecycle (one-shot), and output capture. Relies heavily on inferred context from sibling tools.

  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 only describes 'code' as 'Code to execute'. Description adds significant context: V8 sandbox, ability to use async/await, sleep, console.log, and call provisioned servers. This goes beyond the bare 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?

  Description clearly states it executes code in a V8 sandbox, with explicit mention of accessing provisioned servers. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like mcp_call which directly call server tools.

  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 for running arbitrary JavaScript with sandbox access, and contrasts with direct server calls by showing servers.<name>.call syntax. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives guidance.

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

• mcp_skill_adviseA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It reveals that the tool returns 'MCP server availability and recommendations', which is useful. However, it does not disclose edge cases (e.g., skill not found), permissions needed, or potential side effects.

  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 effectively conveys the purpose and output without unnecessary 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?

  Given the simplicity of the tool (1 param, no output schema), the description is mostly adequate. It explains the return value, but could be more complete by mentioning that it is non-destructive or clarifying what 'recommendations' entails.

  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% for the single parameter 'skill'. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, meeting the baseline of 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 clearly states it is a 'Pre-flight readiness check for a skill', specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like mcp_skill_discover (discovery) and mcp_call (execution) by focusing on readiness checking.

  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 use before calling or executing a skill, but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. No alternatives are mentioned despite having several sibling tools.

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

• mcp_discoverA
  4/5.0
  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. It describes the tool as performing read operations (search and list), but does not disclose any behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, or potential side effects. It is adequate but lacks depth.

  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, concise, and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value, with no 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?

  The description covers both modes of the tool (search and list server status) and explains what happens when no query is provided. No output schema is given, but the description implies the return structure sufficiently.

  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 both parameters described. The description adds some context by explaining the no-query behavior, but does not substantially enhance the parameter definitions beyond what the schema 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 searches tool catalogs across child MCP servers and lists server status. It uses the verb 'discover' and distinguishes from siblings like mcp_call (which likely calls a tool) and mcp_skill_discover (which discovers skills).

  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 explains two usage modes: with a query (search) and without a query (list server status). It provides context on when to use each, though it does not explicitly say when not to use or mention alternatives.

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

• mcp_skill_discoverA
  4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and discloses that results include required MCP servers and availability—key behavioral traits. It does not mention auth or rate limits, which is acceptable for a read-only search 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?

  The description is a single, efficient sentence that immediately conveys the core purpose and key output details.

  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 search tool with no output schema, the description provides reasonable completeness by listing what is returned (skills, required servers, availability). It could be improved by noting pagination or result limits.

  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% and the schema descriptions for 'query' and 'domain' are adequate. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline 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 clearly states the tool searches Claude Code skills, specifies the 'MCP readiness status' criterion, and indicates the return includes required MCP servers and availability. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like mcp_skill_advise and mcp_discover.

  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 should be used when searching for skills with MCP readiness, but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it compares to other search/discovery tools.

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