Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• netbox_get_changelogsB
  3.1/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions filtering but does not describe pagination, return format, or whether the operation is read-only. The lack of detail reduces transparency.

  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 a single, clear sentence with no extraneous words. It efficiently conveys the core purpose.

  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 lack of output schema and annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not explain return values, pagination behavior, or possible filter options, making it incomplete for effective tool use.

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

  Parameters2/5

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

  Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds no value beyond the schema's generic 'dict of filters' explanation. It does not specify acceptable filter keys or semantics, leaving the agent guessing.

  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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'object change records (changelogs)', which is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'netbox_get_objects' and 'netbox_get_object_by_id'.

  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; it only states the action without context about filtering or scenarios where changelogs are needed.

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

• netbox_get_object_by_idB
  3.2/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  Without annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely states 'get detailed information' without describing what that entails, such as the structure of the response, authentication requirements, or error handling. This is insufficient.

  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, consisting of a single sentence with no extraneous words. It efficiently conveys the core purpose without 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 has four parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too minimal. It does not explain what 'detailed information' includes, mention pagination, or address potential errors. More context is needed for adequate completeness.

  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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents all four parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what is in the schema. 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 clearly identifies the operation as getting detailed information about a specific NetBox object by ID, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like netbox_get_objects (plural, not by ID) and netbox_search_objects (search vs. retrieval).

  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 its siblings. It does not mention that it is intended for fetching a single object by ID, while netbox_get_objects might retrieve multiple objects. No exclusion criteria or alternatives are given.

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

• netbox_search_objectsA
  4.6/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description bears full burden. It fully discloses behavior: returns a dictionary with object_type keys, limits per type (default 5, max 100), supports field filtering, and explains the result structure (empty lists for types with no matches). No contradictions.

  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 quite long, spanning several paragraphs with multiple examples. While well-structured with Args, Returns, and Examples sections, it is not concise. The length is justified by the wealth of information, but it could be trimmed slightly.

  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 (4 parameters, output schema exists), the description is very complete. It covers search scope, all parameters with details, return format, and multiple examples. There are no apparent gaps in informing the AI agent about how to use the tool correctly.

  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 description coverage is 0%, but the description compensates thoroughly. Each parameter is explained with examples: 'query' with sample search terms, 'object_types' with default list and examples, 'fields' with recommendation and examples, 'limit' with default and max. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare 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 'Perform global search across NetBox infrastructure' and lists the fields searched (names, descriptions, IPs, etc.). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like netbox_get_object_by_id (single object retrieval) and netbox_get_objects (likely list/retrieve without search), making the purpose 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 provides extensive guidance: when to use (global search), detailed parameter explanations, examples for various search terms, and a strong recommendation to use the 'fields' parameter to minimize token usage. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare directly with siblings within the description.

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

• netbox_get_objectsA
  4.9/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description fully discloses behavior: it's a read operation returning paginated results, with default limit=5 and max=100. It warns about unsupported lookups being silently ignored, explains field filtering, and details the return structure (count, next, previous, results). The note about pagination is critical.

  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 well-structured (Args, Returns, lists) and front-loaded with the core purpose. However, it is verbose, especially the long list of valid object_type values and repeated capitalization of 'ALWAYS REFER'. While comprehensive, it could be more concise without losing clarity.

  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 (7 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is remarkably complete. It covers every parameter, pagination, return structure, filter rules, and common pitfalls. Sibling tools exist but the description alone sufficiently defines the tool's domain.

  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 0%, but the description compensates thoroughly by explaining each of the 7 parameters: object_type (with full list), filters (rules, lookups, examples), fields (importance, examples), brief, limit, offset, ordering (syntax, examples). It adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema types and constraints.

  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: 'Get objects from NetBox based on their type and filters.' It uses a specific verb-resource pair, distinguishes from siblings like netbox_get_object_by_id (single object) and netbox_search_objects, and includes the scope of operation (listing/filtering).

  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 provides extensive usage guidelines: valid filter rules (direct fields, lookups), unsupported patterns (multi-hop, '__in'), two-step cross-relationship pattern, mandatory use of 'fields' parameter, pagination with limit/offset, ordering examples. It implicitly instructs when not to use this tool (e.g., for single objects, use get_object_by_id). Clear and actionable.

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