Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get_project_detailsB
  3.2/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It implies a read operation but does not confirm idempotency, safety, or mention any authentication or rate limits.

  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?

  Description is extremely concise: one sentence for purpose and one for parameter. 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.

  Completeness2/5

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

  Given the tool is simple (1 param, output schema exists), the description is minimal but lacks usage guidelines and detailed behavioral context. It would not fully equip an agent to decide when to invoke this tool correctly.

  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 0%, but the description adds a helpful example ('e.g. 'developer-portfolio-mcp'') and clarifies that project_id is a slug. However, it does not explain what constitutes a valid slug or how to obtain it, which limits practical guidance.

  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 the action 'Get detailed information' and the resource 'specific project'. Sibling tools like list_projects and compare_stack serve different purposes, so this tool's unique role is evident.

  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 (e.g., list_projects for listing all projects) or when not to use it. No prerequisites or context are provided.

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

• compare_stackB
  3.3/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, and the description only states the basic purpose. It does not disclose how the comparison works, what happens with mismatches, or any other behavioral traits, leaving the agent with minimal behavioral context.

  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, no unnecessary words, and the core purpose is front-loaded. Every sentence 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?

  The tool has an output schema, so return values don't need elaboration. However, the description lacks edge cases or context on the output format; it is adequate but minimal.

  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 0%, but the description adds an example and clarifies the parameter as 'list of technologies from a job description,' which provides some meaning beyond the schema's bare type definition.

  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 compares a job's required tech stack against the developer's skills, with a specific verb and resource. It is distinct from sibling tools like get_developer_profile or search_skills.

  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 an example but no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is implied but not clarified.

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

• get_contact_infoA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations provided; description only states 'get' which implies read-only but does not disclose any other behavioral traits like privacy, rate limits, or authentication requirements.

  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?

  Single sentence, 10 words, front-loaded with key information. No unnecessary text.

  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?

  Tool is simple with no parameters and has an output schema (not provided but present). Description covers the basic functionality adequately.

  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; baseline score of 4 for no params. Description does not add param info but none is needed.

  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 the action (Get), resource (contact info), and purpose (for scheduling interviews). Distinguishes from siblings like get_developer_profile or get_project_details.

  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?

  Implies usage for scheduling interviews but provides no explicit guidance on when to use vs. alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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

• list_projectsA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses allowed filter values but does not mention read-only nature, sorting, or pagination behavior.

  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 a clear one-sentence purpose and an args section. No waste, but could be slightly more structured.

  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 low schema coverage and a single parameter, the description adequately explains the parameter. The output schema exists, so return values need not be described. The tool is simple and covered well.

  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%, but the description adds explicit allowed values for the status parameter ('Active', 'Completed', or None), which compensates for the lack of schema-level documentation.

  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 all projects in the developer's portfolio, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings as no other tool lists projects.

  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 provides parameter guidance but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. No exclusions or alternative tools are mentioned.

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

• search_skillsA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses case-insensitivity for query parameter and default category. However, it omits details about pagination, sorting, rate limits, or error behavior. Adds some behavioral context but not comprehensive.

  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-sentence purpose statement followed by clear, concise parameter descriptions. Front-loaded with main action. No redundant information.

  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?

  Covers input parameters well. Output schema exists (though not shown) so return format is likely covered. Lacks mention of result ordering, limits, or pagination, but sufficient for a straightforward search tool.

  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 has 0% description coverage (only titles and types). Description adds meaning: 'Skill name or keyword to search for (case-insensitive)' for query, and 'Skill category to search in, or 'all' for every category' for category. Adds value beyond 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 'Search skills by keyword and optional category', defining the action (search), resource (skills), and parameters. Distinct from sibling tools like compare_stack, get_contact_info, etc.

  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?

  Implies usage (searching skills) but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives or any exclusions. No mention of prerequisites or when not to use.

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

• get_developer_profileA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Since no annotations are provided, the description must convey behavioral traits. It lists return fields but omits aspects like permission requirements, error handling, or caching. For a read-only tool, this is acceptable 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?

  A single sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and output. No redundancy or filler, earning its place.

  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 presence of an output schema, the description appropriately summarizes key fields without detailing return structure. It is sufficient for a simple tool with no parameters.

  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 schema coverage is 100%. The description adds value by enumerating the returned fields, enhancing understanding beyond the empty 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 retrieves a developer's core profile with specific fields (name, title, contact, summary, availability). The verb 'Get' and the resource 'developer profile' are unambiguous, and the listed fields differentiate it from siblings like get_contact_info.

  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 implicitly indicates when to use (when needing core profile data). It doesn't explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives, but the sibling names provide context. For a simple retrieval tool, this is adequate.

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