Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get_github_actionsC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation, what authentication is required (though 'token' is optional in schema), rate limits, pagination, or what 'available' means (e.g., active vs. all actions). This leaves significant gaps for safe invocation.

  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 zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and appropriately sized for a straightforward tool, making it easy to parse quickly.

  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?

  For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'available GitHub Actions' entails (e.g., list format, metadata included), authentication needs despite an optional token, or error handling. Given the complexity of GitHub APIs and sibling tools, more context is needed for reliable use.

  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 parameters are well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying the tool fetches actions for a repository, which aligns with the schema but doesn't enhance parameter understanding. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

  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 action ('Get') and resource ('GitHub Actions for a repository'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_github_action' (singular) or 'get_github_release', leaving some ambiguity about scope.

  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. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, constraints, or relationships with sibling tools like 'get_github_action' (singular) or 'trigger_github_action', leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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

• get_github_releaseC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but lacks critical details like whether it requires authentication (though the token parameter is optional in the schema), rate limits, error handling, or the format of returned data. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the 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.

  Conciseness5/5

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

  The description is a single, direct sentence that efficiently conveys the core functionality without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's scope, making it easy to understand at a glance.

  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 complexity of interacting with GitHub APIs, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to address key aspects like authentication needs, rate limiting, error responses, or the structure of the release data returned, which are essential for effective tool usage in a real-world context.

  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 has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting all parameters (owner, repo, token). The description does not add any additional meaning or context beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the 'latest 2 releases' constraint or token usage. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

  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 action ('Get') and resource ('latest 2 releases from a GitHub repository'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_github_action' or 'get_github_actions', which focus on GitHub Actions rather than releases, so it misses full sibling distinction.

  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, such as when to choose it over other GitHub-related tools or how it fits into broader workflows. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual usage scenarios.

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

• get_github_actionB
  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 carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It describes what information is returned but lacks details on permissions required (e.g., public vs. private repos), rate limits, error conditions, or response format. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant 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.

  Conciseness5/5

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

  The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and includes a useful detail about inputs and requirements. Every part of the 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?

  Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate for a read-only tool. It clarifies the scope (detailed info about a specific action) but doesn't address behavioral aspects like authentication needs or response structure. For a tool with 5 parameters and no structured safety hints, it should provide more context about usage constraints.

  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 the schema already documents all 5 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't clarify 'path' defaults or 'token' usage scenarios). Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

  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's purpose: 'Get detailed information about a specific GitHub Action, including inputs and their requirements.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('GitHub Action') with additional detail about what information is retrieved. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_github_actions' (plural vs. singular).

  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 doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_github_actions' (which likely lists multiple actions) or 'trigger_github_action' (which executes an action). There's no context about prerequisites, limitations, or typical use cases.

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

• enable_pull_request_automergeB
  3.2/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it states the tool enables auto-merge and describes the triggering condition, it lacks critical information about permissions needed, whether this is reversible, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens to existing auto-merge settings. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, 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 perfectly concise with two sentences that directly communicate the core functionality. Every word earns its place, and it's front-loaded with the main 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?

  For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address permissions, error handling, return values, or important behavioral details like whether this overrides existing settings or requires specific repository configurations. The context signals show this is a non-trivial operation (5 parameters, 3 required), warranting more comprehensive documentation.

  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 the schema fully documents all 5 parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, but it does provide context about the overall purpose that helps understand parameter usage. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

  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 specific action ('Enable auto-merge') and the target resource ('for a specific pull request'), with additional detail about the automatic merging behavior when checks pass. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (which are all read operations) by being a write/mutation tool.

  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, prerequisites, or constraints. It mentions the condition 'when all required checks pass' but doesn't specify what happens if checks fail or if there are other requirements like permissions.

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

• trigger_github_actionB
  3.2/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'trigger' and 'custom inputs,' which implies a write operation, but lacks details on permissions required (beyond the token parameter), rate limits, whether the action is idempotent, what happens on failure, or the expected response format. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the 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.

  Conciseness5/5

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

  The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Trigger a GitHub workflow dispatch event') and adds necessary context ('with custom inputs'). There is no wasted verbiage, and it directly communicates the tool's function 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 complexity of triggering GitHub actions (a write operation with multiple parameters and no output schema), the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavioral aspects like authentication needs, error handling, or response structure, which are critical for an agent to use the tool effectively. The high schema coverage helps with parameters, but overall completeness is poor due to missing operational context.

  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 has 100% description coverage, so the schema already documents all six parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond implying that 'custom inputs' map to the 'inputs' parameter, but it doesn't provide additional syntax, format details, or constraints not covered in the schema. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

  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 specific action ('trigger') and resource ('GitHub workflow dispatch event') with additional context ('with custom inputs'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_github_action' or 'enable_pull_request_automerge' by focusing on initiating workflows rather than retrieving information or modifying settings.

  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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it's implied for triggering workflows, there's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing a GitHub token with specific scopes), when not to use it (e.g., for manual triggers vs. automated ones), or how it differs from other workflow-related tools in the ecosystem.

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