Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• eight_set_cookieC
  2.4/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses persistence ('local MCP config file') but omits details like overwrite behavior, side effects, or security implications. The 'verify' parameter is not explained.

  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?

  Single sentence is concise but lacks structure. It earns its place by being short, but conveys minimal information.

  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?

  With a moderately complex input schema (2 params, optional boolean) and an output schema present, the description fails to explain return values, side effects, or how this tool fits into the auth workflow. Incomplete for safe agent use.

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

  Parameters1/5

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

  Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no parameter details. It only mentions 'Cookie header' loosely, leaving both 'cookie' and 'verify' parameters unexplained.

  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?

  Description clearly states the action ('Store a Cookie header') and location ('local MCP config file'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like eight_auth_login or eight_fetch_person. However, 'Cookie header' is slightly ambiguous—could be more precise like 'a cookie value'.

  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 vs alternatives (e.g., eight_auth_login). The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or user scenarios.

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

• eight_search_personC
  2.8/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are present, so the description must carry the full burden. It mentions the default source scope and the effect of source='all', but lacks details on pagination behavior (perPage, networkLimit), potential rate limits, or safety implications. The behavior is only partially disclosed.

  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 very concise (two clauses), front-loading the key purpose. It efficiently conveys the default behavior and the optional source parameter. However, it could be slightly more verbose without losing conciseness to cover more parameters.

  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 the presence of an output schema (so return values don't need explanation), the description provides a basic understanding of the search scope. However, for a tool with 4 parameters, the missing explanations for query, perPage, and networkLimit leave gaps. It is adequate but incomplete.

  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?

  With 0% schema coverage, the description should explain all parameters. Only the 'source' parameter gets partial explanation (default vs all). The 'query' parameter is not described, and 'perPage' and 'networkLimit' are completely undocumented. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema.

  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 description clearly states the tool searches for person cards, with a default scope of registered cards and optional expansion to public network. The verb 'search' and resource 'person cards' are specific, and the sibling 'eight_fetch_person' suggests a distinction between searching and fetching, though not explicitly stated.

  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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like eight_fetch_person. The description does not mention prerequisites, use cases, or when not to use it, leaving the agent to infer.

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

• eight_auth_loginB
  3.1/5.0
  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 that the tool runs a subprocess (browser CLI), captures cookies, and saves them, but lacks details on error handling, side effects, or where cookies are saved. This is adequate but not thorough.

  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?

  A single, clear sentence with no extraneous information. It is front-loaded with the core action, though it could be structured with bullet points for readability.

  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?

  Has an output schema so return values are not needed in description. However, for a tool that runs a subprocess, more context on interactivity, expected browser, and post-login state would improve completeness. It is functional but leaves gaps.

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

  Parameters1/5

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

  Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the parameters 'headless' and 'timeoutSeconds'. While names are somewhat self-explanatory, the description fails to compensate for the missing schema 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?

  Description clearly states it runs a CLI browser login in a subprocess, captures Eight cookies, and saves them. It uses a specific verb 'login' and resource 'auth', distinguishing it from siblings like eight_auth_status, eight_fetch_person, etc.

  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. It doesn't mention prerequisites, such as whether an existing session is required, or when not to use it (e.g., if cookies are already present).

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

• eight_fetch_personA
  3.8/5.0
  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 for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention side effects (e.g., read-only), authentication requirements, error handling, or what happens for invalid ids. This is a significant gap for a fetch operation.

  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 a single sentence that conveys essential information efficiently. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separate usage hint). No waste.

  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 the tool has one parameter and an output schema, the description covers the core purpose and id source. However, it lacks behavioral context (e.g., authentication, id validity) and does not leverage the output schema to explain return values (though not required). Adequate but with clear gaps.

  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 schema has 0% description coverage, but the description adds meaning by specifying the id parameter is 'returned by eight_search_person'. This provides context beyond the bare schema, though further details (e.g., id format) would improve it.

  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 fetches detailed contact/profile fields for an id from eight_search_person. It uses a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('contact/profile fields'), and distinguishes from the sibling search tool by specifying the source of the id.

  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 indicates the tool should be used with an id returned by eight_search_person, providing clear context. However, it does not give explicit when-not-to-use scenarios or alternatives beyond the implied dependency on the search tool.

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

• eight_auth_statusA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It indicates a read-like operation but does not explicitly state it is non-destructive, nor describe error cases or output behavior. The output schema exists but description lacks details beyond the one-line summary.

  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, no wasted words. Front-loaded with the core action: 'Check whether Eight authentication is configured and currently usable.'

  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 zero parameters and an existing output schema, the description is sufficient. It tells the tool's purpose clearly. Could mention return format or side effects, but output schema likely covers details.

  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?

  No parameters exist in the input schema, so baseline is 4. Description adds no parameter info as none are 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 it checks whether Eight authentication is configured and usable, using specific verb 'Check' and resource 'authentication status'. It differentiates from siblings like eight_auth_login (login) and eight_fetch_person (fetching person data).

  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 implies using this tool to verify auth status before using other tools, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or suggest alternatives. However, sibling tool names provide context.

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