Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• lock_statusA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility. It explicitly states 'Data only — never refuses,' discloses the detection algorithms (owner-file patterns, two-sample timing, tmp-sibling checks), and even references an internal docstring. It also lists the exact error condition (INVALID_INPUT). This is extremely transparent about behavior beyond 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.

  Conciseness3/5

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

  The description is thorough but somewhat long and dense, including implementation details like reference to an internal docstring and naming sample intervals. It front-loads the purpose and then dives into specifics. While every sentence provides value, the length might exceed what is immediately necessary for an agent to decide to call the tool. A more compact version could retain the key facts.

  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 tool has an output schema (indicated by context), yet the description still enumerates the returned fields and their structure. It also explains behavior, timing, error cases, and the distinction between owner-file detection and sync-quiesce. For a tool of this complexity (multi-part return, nuanced detection), the description covers all necessary invocation context.

  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?

  There is only one parameter, 'path,' with no schema documentation (0% coverage). The description doesn't explicitly define 'path' but the context (checking a file) makes its meaning clear. The error condition 'path does not exist or is outside the allowed roots' adds semantic boundaries. While it doesn't explicitly say 'path is the file to check,' the surrounding text implies that strongly enough.

  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 and resource: 'Report Word/LibreOffice owner-file presence and sync-quiesce state.' It clearly distinguishes the tool from the sibling 'export_pdf' by naming the exact monitoring function. The scope (owner files, sync quiescence) is unambiguous.

  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 for checking file-writing stability ('sync_quiesced' state) and notes 'Data only — never refuses,' indicating a read-only check. It does not explicitly state when to use this versus export_pdf, but the sibling's purpose is obviously different. The phrase 'Data only' hints that it is safe to call without side effects, which is useful context.

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

• export_pdfA
  4.8/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: it discloses that the source .docx is never modified (Word opens a private staged copy), that page_count is best-effort and never a guessed 0, that left_open_document is never auto-closed (with a pointer to render.py for why), and enumerates all error conditions with their meanings. This is exemplary behavioral disclosure.

  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 dense and information-rich, with clear section breaks for return values and errors. It is longer than typical, but every sentence earns its place by disclosing constraints, behavior, or error handling. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and then systematically covers edge cases. Slightly verbose in the error section, but justified for a tool with complex failure modes.

  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 complexity (Word automation, sandbox, macOS permissions, best-effort page count), the description covers all critical aspects: input constraints, output format, error taxonomy, and behavioral quirks. The output schema exists, so return values are further structured. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

  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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does not explicitly define 'path' beyond 'a local .docx', but it thoroughly defines output_path constraints and the return value semantics. The description adds substantial meaning to output_path and the overall behavior, though 'path' itself is only implicitly described as the source .docx. This is strong compensation for a 0% coverage 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Render a local .docx to PDF via Microsoft Word and report its page count.' This clearly distinguishes it from the only sibling (lock_status), which is about lock state, not document conversion. The purpose is unambiguous.

  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 states constraints on output_path (must fall inside VERIFIED_DOCX_MCP_ALLOWED_FILE_ROOTS, must not resolve to a credential path, parent must exist), and clarifies this is a read/render tool, not a mutating one. It also names the only engine (Word) and explicitly says no LibreOffice, which is a clear exclusion. This is strong when-to-use guidance.

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