Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• mcp-adapter-execute-abilityB
  3.4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, and the description adds useful scope by saying it 'can run any registered ability,' which signals arbitrary side effects. It does not elaborate on what consequences might occur, but the destructive hint covers the core safety signal and no contradiction exists.

  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 two short sentences with no filler. The action is front-loaded and the second sentence clarifies breadth, though it is somewhat generic and could have been replaced by more specific guidance.

  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 output schema reduces the need to describe return values, and the core function is clear. However, for a potentially destructive dynamic execution tool, the description lacks safety context such as validating ability names or using discover-abilities first, leaving an agent to infer safe 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% and both parameters have meaningful descriptions. The tool description only restates 'with the provided parameters' and adds no detail about parameter formats, allowed ability names, or how parameters relate to the ability being executed.

  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 names a clear action ('Execute') and resource ('WordPress ability'), and identifies the tool as the primary execution layer. This distinguishes it from the sibling discovery/info tools, though 'ability' remains somewhat generic and the description does not mention the required ability_name field.

  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 this tool is for running abilities, especially as the counterpart to discover/get-info siblings, but it does not explicitly say when to use it versus alternatives. It also omits guidance such as discovering abilities first to obtain valid ability names.

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

• mcp-adapter-get-ability-infoA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and the description does not contradict them. It adds useful information about what is returned, but no additional operational caveats such as authentication needs 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 a single sentence with no filler, front-loading the core purpose and then listing the specific information returned. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

  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?

  For a single-parameter, read-only introspection tool, the description, input schema, and annotations together give an agent everything needed to select and call it correctly. The output schema removes the need to describe return values in the description.

  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%, and the only parameter, ability_name, is already documented as 'The full name of the ability to get information about.' The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score applies.

  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 names a specific verb ('Get'), a particular resource ('specific WordPress ability'), and concrete return contents (input/output schema, description, usage examples). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that discover abilities or execute abilities.

  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 targeted use by emphasizing 'specific,' but it does not explicitly say when to choose this tool over mcp-adapter-discover-abilities or mcp-adapter-execute-ability. No exclusions or alternative-routing guidance is provided.

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

• mcp-adapter-discover-abilitiesA
  4.1/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds that it returns a list with basic information, which is useful, but it does not disclose ordering, pagination, or result-size details. For a simple read-only list tool, this is adequate but not exceptional.

  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 two short sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and every word contributes useful 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?

  Given zero parameters, safety annotations, and an existing output schema, the description provides everything an agent needs to select and invoke the tool correctly. There are no missing input or behavior details that would block correct usage.

  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 zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so there is nothing the description needs to add about inputs. The baseline of 4 applies because the schema fully defines the input surface.

  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 a specific verb ('Discover') and resource ('all available WordPress abilities'), and explicitly says it returns a list of registered abilities. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like get-ability-info and execute-ability, which target a single ability or perform an action.

  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 the discovery use case — listing all abilities — but does not explicitly state when to prefer it over mcp-adapter-get-ability-info or mcp-adapter-execute-ability. The intended workflow of discover first, then inspect or execute, is left to inference.

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