Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• list-midi-outputsC
  2.2/5.0
  Behavior1/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Lists MIDI outputs' reveals nothing about whether this is a read-only operation, whether it requires specific permissions, what format the output takes, whether there are rate limits, or any other behavioral characteristics. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this description provides essentially no behavioral transparency beyond the implied action of listing.

  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 'Lists MIDI outputs' is maximally concise at just three words. There is zero waste or redundancy, and it communicates the core action immediately. For such a simple tool with no parameters, this level of brevity is appropriate and efficient. Every word earns its place by contributing to the basic understanding of what the tool does.

  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?

  Given that this is a zero-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should provide more context about what 'MIDI outputs' are and what format the listing returns. The description is incomplete for helping an agent understand what to expect from this tool - it doesn't explain what constitutes a MIDI output, whether the list includes names/IDs/capabilities, or how the results are structured. For even a simple listing tool, more context would be helpful.

  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, and the input schema has 100% description coverage (though it's empty). With no parameters to document, the description doesn't need to add parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, as there's no parameter information that could be missing or inadequately described. The description doesn't contradict the empty parameter schema.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose2/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description 'Lists MIDI outputs' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'list-midi-outputs' and title 'List MIDI outputs'. While it does include a verb ('Lists') and resource ('MIDI outputs'), it provides no additional specificity about what MIDI outputs are, what format they're listed in, or what distinguishes this from other listing operations. It meets the minimum requirement of stating what the tool does but does so in the most basic possible way.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines1/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description provides absolutely no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is a sibling tool named 'play' on the server, but the description doesn't mention it or explain how 'list-midi-outputs' relates to it. There's no context about prerequisites, appropriate use cases, or when this tool should be selected over other options. The agent receives no usage guidance beyond the tool name itself.

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

• playC
  2.4/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but only states the basic action ('Plays a music score'). It doesn't describe what 'playing' entails (e.g., audio output, MIDI device activation, duration, error conditions), whether it's blocking/non-blocking, or any side effects like resource consumption or permissions needed.

  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 extremely concise with just three words, front-loading the core action without unnecessary elaboration. Every word earns its place, though this conciseness contributes to underspecification in other dimensions.

  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?

  For a complex tool with 3 parameters, nested objects, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'playing' means operationally, what happens after invocation, or how to interpret results, leaving significant gaps despite the detailed schema.

  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 schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds no parameter information beyond what's in the schema, maintaining the baseline score of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting without additional value from the description.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose2/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description 'Plays a music score' is a tautology that restates the tool name 'play' and title 'Play a music score' without adding specificity. It lacks a clear verb+resource distinction and doesn't differentiate from the sibling tool 'list-midi-outputs' beyond the obvious action difference.

  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. While the input schema includes some usage hints (e.g., 'Don't add unless requested' for parameters), the description itself offers no context about prerequisites, typical scenarios, or comparisons to the sibling tool 'list-midi-outputs'.

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