Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get_login_credentialsB
  3.1/5.0
  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 context. It states what the tool returns but doesn't disclose critical traits like whether credentials are stored securely, if this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, or error conditions (e.g., missing credentials).

  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 function and target. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Returns the login credentials') and includes necessary context ('for authentication to http://localhost') without any wasted words.

  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 handling sensitive authentication data with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on return format (e.g., structured object vs. plain text), security implications, error handling, or how it integrates with sibling authentication tools, leaving significant gaps for an agent.

  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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately focuses on the tool's purpose without redundant parameter details, meeting the baseline for parameter-less tools.

  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 with a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('login credentials'), and specifies the authentication target ('to http://localhost'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'perform_login' or 'test_connection', which prevents a perfect score.

  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 (e.g., whether credentials must be pre-configured), timing (e.g., before or after login attempts), or relationships to sibling tools like 'perform_login' or 'test_connection'.

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

• navigate_to_pimA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the navigation mechanism (left-hand menu) and prerequisite (user logged in), but doesn't mention potential side effects, error conditions, or what constitutes successful navigation. The behavioral context is adequate but minimal.

  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 concise sentences with zero waste: first states the action and mechanism, second provides crucial prerequisite. Every word earns its place, and the most important information (what the tool does) is front-loaded.

  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's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the essential purpose and prerequisite. However, for a navigation tool with no annotations, it could benefit from mentioning what happens after navigation or how to verify success.

  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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema coverage, so the schema already fully documents the empty parameter set. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, maintaining focus on the tool's purpose and usage context.

  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 ('navigates to') and target resource ('PIM page'), specifying it uses the left-hand navigation menu. It distinguishes from siblings like login tools by assuming user is already logged in, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

  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 clear context for when to use ('Assumes user is already logged in'), which implicitly distinguishes from login-related siblings. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use or name specific alternatives like 'perform_login' for unauthenticated scenarios.

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

• test_connectionA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the tool's basic behavior (testing URL accessibility) but lacks details about what 'accessible' means (e.g., HTTP status codes, timeout behavior, error handling). It doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation or has side effects.

  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 with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool with no 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?

  For a simple connectivity test tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but lacks important context. It doesn't specify what constitutes 'accessible' (e.g., successful HTTP response, network reachability) or what the output might contain. Without annotations or output schema, more behavioral detail would be helpful.

  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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist, and it correctly focuses on the tool's purpose instead.

  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 ('Tests') and target resource ('target URL (http://localhost)'), with explicit mention of the accessibility check. It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like get_login_credentials or perform_login by focusing on connectivity testing rather than authentication or navigation.

  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 description implies usage for checking URL accessibility, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or any prerequisites. The context suggests it might be used before login operations, but this is not stated directly.

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

• perform_loginA
  4.1/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it's an automated login operation (implies mutation/action), uses predefined credentials (admin/AIWorkshopJuly!25), requires a Playwright server for browser automation, and has a default URL. It doesn't mention potential side effects, error conditions, or what happens after login.

  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, zero waste. The first sentence states the core purpose with key details (credentials, URL). The second sentence adds essential prerequisite context (Playwright requirement). 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?

  For a login tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the basic operation and prerequisites adequately. However, it doesn't explain what happens after login (success/failure states, session handling) or potential security implications, which would be valuable given the mutation nature and credential usage.

  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 the single parameter (url). The description adds marginal value by mentioning the default value ('defaults to http://localhost') and that it's for login navigation, but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides.

  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 ('Performs automated login') with the target resource ('to http://localhost'), and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying it uses browser automation with predefined credentials. It's not just restating the name but explaining the actual implementation.

  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 about when to use this tool ('requires a Playwright MCP server to be running for browser automation') and mentions the default credentials, but doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives among the sibling tools (like get_login_credentials).

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