Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• attachmentsA
  3.7/5.0
  Behavior1/5

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

  The description includes a delete operation, which is inherently destructive, yet the annotations declare destructiveHint=false. This is a direct contradiction between the description's stated behavior and the annotation, making the tool's safety profile misleading.

  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 succinct and well-structured. A one-line summary is followed by a compact table that conveys per-operation arguments and notes without redundant prose. Every element 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 is complex with four operations and many parameters, and there is no output schema. The description explains the download behavior (metadata and bytes, savePath) but does not describe return values for list, upload, or delete, nor error conditions. This leaves gaps for the agent, though the table covers parameter requirements 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema: filePath is resolved from local:// URIs by the harness, project is required for #ref or wiki slug, and download writes to savePath when given. These details enrich parameter understanding.

  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's purpose: 'List, upload, download, or delete attachments across work items and wiki pages.' This provides a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like comments or wiki.

  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 table provides clear usage context for each operation, listing required and optional arguments and notes (e.g., 'project required for #ref or wiki slug'). It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the per-operation breakdown gives strong guidance on how to use the tool.

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

• wikiA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior1/5

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

  There is a direct contradiction with annotations. The description states "Delete wiki page permanently," which is destructive, but annotations declare destructiveHint=false. This inconsistency seriously impairs the agent's trust in the tool's safety profile.

  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, using a single overview sentence followed by a compact table. Every row in the table earns its place, specifying required/optional arguments and notes without unnecessary filler.

  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 all six operations with argument requirements and additional notes, which is substantial for a multi-operation tool. However, it omits return value details for the operations, and since there is no output schema, this represents a minor gap in completeness.

  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 covers 100% of parameters, but the description adds meaningful context beyond the schema: 'page is the slug' for create, 'project needed if page is slug' for several operations, OCC versioning for update, and watch defaulting to true. This enhances schema-only semantics.

  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's purpose: "Create, inspect, update, delete, or watch wiki pages in a project." This uses specific verbs and a resource that naturally distinguishes it from sibling tools (projects, work, sprints, comments, attachments).

  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 table provides operation-specific required and optional arguments, giving clear context on when each operation is applicable. It does not explicitly mention alternative tools or when not to use this tool, but the resource focus on wiki pages is sufficiently clear.

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

• projectsA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld hints. The description adds behavioral context: credentials are sourced from environment variables and authentication occurs on first use. This explains the tool's interaction with external state without contradicting the annotations.

  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 compact and well-structured, using a table to organize the three operations. No redundant sentences; all content is informative.

  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?

  With no output schema, the description briefly indicates return types (e.g., 'list projects', 'inspect metadata, owner, member count', 'show current user info'), which is sufficient for a read-only tool. It covers credential handling and operation-specific arguments effectively.

  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 already describes op and project (100% coverage). The description goes further by mapping each operation to its required/optional arguments, clarifying that get needs project while list and whoami don't, which is not evident from the schema alone.

  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 'List or inspect Taiga projects and verify credentials' and then enumerates three operations (list, get, whoami) in a structured table, making the tool's purpose unmistakable and distinct from siblings like sprints or work.

  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?

  Provides explicit guidance to use the whoami operation for credential verification, and the table indicates when each op applies (e.g., get for inspecting a specific project's metadata). While it doesn't name sibling alternatives, the resource-specific scope makes the use case clear.

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

• commentsA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the key behavioral note about Taiga soft-deletes comments on delete, which provides insight into the delete operation's reversibility. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them (soft-delete aligns with destructiveHint=false). No auth or rate-limit context, but the soft-delete note is valuable.

  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 concise: one sentence stating the purpose, a short soft-delete note, and a clean markdown table mapping ops to required/optional args. Every element is functional, no redundancy or filler.

  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 tool has 7 parameters and no output schema. The description covers all operations and the soft-delete behavior, which is sufficient for basic usage. It could mention pagination or the return format for list, but the operation table and soft-delete note make it reasonably complete for a CRUD-style tool.

  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 a critical semantic layer via the operation table, which specifies which parameters are required or optional for each op. For example, the schema only marks 'op' as required, but the table shows that 'type' and 'item' are required for all operations, and 'text' or 'commentId' are required for specific ops. This conditional requirement is not in the schema and is essential for correct tool use.

  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 uses specific verbs ('List, add, edit, or delete') and identifies the resource ('comments on issues, user stories, tasks, epics, and wiki pages'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like attachments or wiki by scoping the domain to comments.

  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 provides clear context on what item types are supported and lists operations. While it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools for exclusion, the scope is well-defined enough that an agent can infer when to use this tool versus siblings. No explicit when-not guidance is given, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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

• workA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  The description explicitly warns that delete is permanent and that Taiga has no trash, and explains the batch create-only safeguard prevents accidental board clearing. This adds substantial safety context beyond the destructiveHint annotation, and there is no contradiction with annotations.

  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 compact and well-structured, starting with a one-line summary followed by a bulleted list of operations. Every sentence provides operational guidance, with no filler or redundant information.

  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?

  All seven operations have their required parameters stated, the delete behavior carries a detailed permanence warning with rationale, and the batch limit is explicitly noted. Without an output schema, this description sufficiently covers invocation semantics for a complex 21-parameter tool.

  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 all 21 parameters already have descriptions. The tool description only reiterates which parameters are required for specific operations (e.g., project required) without adding new semantic meaning. The schema carries the parameter documentation burden.

  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 states 'Manage Taiga work items (issues, user stories, tasks, epics)' and enumerates seven distinct operations with specific verbs (list, get, create, update, link, unlink, delete). This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like projects, sprints, and wiki.

  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 operation list provides clear context with required parameters for each operation (e.g., 'project required', 'item required') and includes a safety warning about delete being permanent. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, though the separation from siblings is implicit in the description.

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

• sprintsA
  4.7/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations indicate non-read-only, non-destructive, open-world. The description adds valuable context that sprint deletion is intentionally not exposed because it detaches all stories/tasks, a board-wide edit better done in the UI. This goes beyond annotations by explaining the design rationale, though it does not detail auth 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?

  The description is well-structured with a brief overview and bullet-pointed operations. Every line provides necessary information without redundancy or fluff.

  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?

  Despite no output schema, the description covers all operations, required parameters, exclusions (deletion), and points to the correct sibling tool for related actions. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the 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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The description adds operational context (e.g., which parameters are required for which op, project needed when sprint is a name) beyond the schema, improving the agent's ability to invoke the tool correctly.

  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 manages Taiga sprints with specific operations (list, get, create, stats). It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly mentioning the work tool for deletion and implying project tool for project-level tasks.

  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?

  Provides explicit operation-specific prerequisites (e.g., 'Requires project' for list, 'project required if sprint is a name' for get/stats). Also gives an alternative: 'Delete individual work items with the work tool instead' when discussing deletion.

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