Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• strapi_list_serversC
  2.8/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It states the tool lists servers (read-only), but includes a security policy about write operations that is irrelevant to this tool. It does not describe the output format or any side effects, leaving behavioral gaps.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness2/5

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

  The description starts with a clear purpose sentence but then includes a large block of general Strapi documentation (security policy, version differences, errors, best practices) that is not directly relevant to listing servers. This reduces conciseness and adds noise.

  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?

  The description is incomplete for a tool with no output schema. It does not state what the returned list contains (e.g., server names, URLs). The contextual extras about version support and errors are not specific to this tool, leaving essential information 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?

  The input schema has 0 parameters, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description omits parameter details, which is appropriate given the schema. Baseline 4 applies.

  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 first sentence clearly states the tool's action and resource: 'List all available Strapi servers from the configuration.' This is specific and distinct from sibling tools, but the description does not explicitly differentiate it from siblings like strapi_get_content_types or strapi_rest.

  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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description includes best practices and common errors for Strapi in general, but does not tell the agent when listing servers is appropriate or when to use sibling tools instead.

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

• strapi_get_content_typesB
  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 carries full burden. It states a read operation but lacks details on side effects, auth needs, rate limits, or error behavior. The extra conventions section does not describe this tool's behavior.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness2/5

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

  The description is verbose and includes extensive redundant material (initialization steps, schema conventions, endpoint patterns) that are not specific to this tool. Not 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?

  For a simple list tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description states the return value (complete schema) but lacks details on format, pagination, or errors. The extra context about Strapi conventions is helpful but not necessary.

  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 input schema already provides a clear description for the single 'server' parameter. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, baseline 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 explicitly states 'Get all content types from Strapi. Returns the complete schema of all content types,' providing a clear verb+resource combination. It naturally distinguishes from siblings like strapi_get_components and strapi_rest.

  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 'Initialization Steps' implies this tool should be used first, but no explicit guidance on when not to use it or comparisons with sibling tools. Alternatives are not named.

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

• strapi_get_componentsA
  3.5/5.0
  Behavior3/5

  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 mentions pagination support and return format (component data + metadata), but does not explicitly state read-only nature, error handling, or rate limits. The added detail is useful 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: the first states the core function, the second details the output. Every word is purposeful, no redundancy. Front-loaded with the most important information.

  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?

  Given no output schema and no annotations, the description outlines the returned data types but lacks detail on component structure, error responses, or pagination field semantics. It is adequate but not 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?

  Input schema covers all 3 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's own descriptions; it only reiterates pagination in broad terms.

  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 action ('Get all components from Strapi') and includes pagination support, distinguishing it from siblings like 'get_content_types' by resource type. It is specific and unambiguous.

  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 (e.g., strapi_get_content_types, strapi_rest). There is no mention of prerequisites, scenarios, or exclusions.

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

• strapi_upload_mediaA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It correctly identifies the tool as a write operation and highlights the authorization requirement. However, it does not disclose what happens if authorization is not provided, the response structure, or any side effects beyond the immediate upload.

  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 relatively concise, front-loading the main purpose and important authorization note. The subsequent steps and linking example are helpful but add length. Overall, it is well-structured and readable.

  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 tool's complexity (6 parameters, nested objects, no output schema), the description provides essential context: the upload workflow, linking steps, and authorization requirement. It lacks a description of the return value but compensates with procedural guidance.

  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 input schema already covers 83% of parameters with descriptions. The description adds minimal new meaning beyond restating the schema's purpose and emphasizing the 'userAuthorized' requirement. Given high schema coverage, 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 uploads media to Strapi's media library from a URL, with format conversion, quality control, and metadata options. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (which are get/list/rest operations) as the dedicated upload/write tool.

  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 emphasizes that this is a write operation requiring user authorization via the 'userAuthorized' parameter. It also provides upload steps and linking instructions, guiding the agent on how to use the tool in a workflow. However, it does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives 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.

• strapi_restA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior4/5

  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 discloses that write operations require authorization, and gives error handling tips. It does not explicitly state destructive nature or rate limits, but the authorization requirement implies mutability for writes.

  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 front-loaded with the critical authorization note and well-organized into sections (Reading Data, Writing Data, Debugging Guide, Strapi v5 Specifics). While comprehensive, it is slightly verbose but every section is informative and earned.

  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?

  Given no output schema, the description focuses on input and common errors but does not explain what the tool returns (the API response object). It covers usage scenarios well, but for a tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, a brief mention of the return format would improve completeness.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters5/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds significant value by providing concrete examples for params (populate, filters, sort, pagination) and body (single and repeatable components). It also explains the userAuthorized parameter in detail, including the need for explicit user authorization.

  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 'Execute REST API requests against Strapi endpoints', specifying the verb (execute) and resource (REST API requests to Strapi). It is distinct from sibling tools which handle components, content types, servers, and media uploads.

  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?

  Explicitly says write operations (POST, PUT, DELETE) require userAuthorized: true, and provides detailed examples for reading and writing. Also includes a debugging guide and Strapi v5 specifics, helping the agent decide when and how to use this tool versus alternatives.

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