Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• add_to_mapA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It usefully states that existing content is preserved and that the map is a 'durable artifact'. However, it omits important details such as what happens on duplicate concept labels (schema says 'new or updated'), whether the operation is idempotent, any required permissions, or the return payload. The description adds some value but not enough for full 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 exactly two sentences, front-loaded with the main action and then the use-case context. Every sentence earns its place, with no filler or repetition of structured fields. It is well-structured and succinct.

  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?

  The description covers the overall purpose and usage context, and the schema fully documents all parameters. It does not explain return values, error behavior, or edge cases like invalid labels, but for an append-like tool with no output schema, the context is reasonably complete. The description is sufficient for the primary use case of incrementally building a map.

  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 baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema; it merely names concepts and relations, which are already defined in the schema. It does not elaborate on parameter formats, defaults, or the template enum beyond what the schema already provides. Hence, the description does not elevate parameter understanding beyond the structured data.

  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 clear verb and resource: 'Append concepts and relations to an existing NodeLand map'. It explicitly distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing it modifies an existing map rather than creating a new one (create_map) or retrieving (get_map/list_maps). The detail 'preserving what is already there' further clarifies its additive scope.

  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 tells when to use the tool: 'Use across a conversation when the agent keeps discovering structure'. It implies the alternative is a one-shot action (likely create_map) by saying 'not a one-shot dump'. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for an agent to make a reasonable choice.

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

• create_mapA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the map is persistent, shareable, returns a URL to give the user, and warns against inventing JSON/coordinates. However, it omits details like permission requirements, failure modes, or whether existing maps are overwritten. It adds some useful context but not rich behavioral coverage.

  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, front-loaded with the core purpose, then usage guidance, constraints, and post-success action. Every sentence earns its place, with no fluff or repetition.

  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?

  For a 6-parameter creation tool with no output schema, the description covers the key aspects: what it does, when to use, a critical constraint, and the next step after success (give the URL). It does not describe the full return structure or error handling, but it adequately addresses the main operational need.

  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 six parameters. The description only reinforces the use of concepts/relations and a named template, adding little beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the 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 tool creates a persistent, shareable NodeLand map, with specific use cases (mind map, concept map, organogram, study map). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_to_map and get_map by focusing on creation of a new, standalone artifact.

  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?

  Explicitly says 'Use when the user wants a mind map, concept map, organogram, or study map they can open later and edit by hand.' It also provides a concrete 'do not' instruction (invent Cytoscape JSON/coordinates). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools for adding to existing maps, so it falls short of a 5.

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

• get_mapA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that the output is a compact summary rather than raw JSON, implying a transformed view. It does not explicitly state read-only behavior, but 'Fetch' strongly suggests it. This is adequate for a simple retrieval tool.

  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 sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the action and output type; the second provides usage context. Every word earns its place.

  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?

  For a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is complete enough. It explains what is returned, when to use it, and how it differs from raw JSON. It does not detail the exact structure of the summary, but that would likely be over-specification for this tool.

  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 schema already fully describes mapId as 'Map id' (100% coverage). The description adds context that mapId refers to an existing NodeLand map, but does not specify format or constraints beyond that. This is a marginal improvement over the schema, so 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 states the tool fetches a NodeLand map as a compact concepts/relations summary, explicitly contrasting with raw Cytoscape JSON. This distinguishes it from siblings like list_maps and create_map by focusing on the summary output and its use for review.

  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 explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use before editing an existing map or to remind yourself what is already on it.' While it does not name alternative tools or state when not to use it, the context is clear and actionable.

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

• list_mapsA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description provides some behavioral context by scoping results to 'the API key's user', but it omits other behavioral details like pagination behavior or error responses. There is no contradiction with annotations (none provided).

  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 no redundancy. The first sentence states the core function, and the second adds practical usage context. It is front-loaded and to the point.

  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?

  For a simple list tool with no output schema and fully documented parameters, the description covers the essential purpose, ownership scope, and a practical use case. It could mention sorting or default pagination, but those are already in the schema, so the description is sufficiently complete.

  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?

  Input schema provides full descriptions for both parameters (limit and search), so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already provides, earning the baseline 3.

  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 function: listing maps owned by the API key's user. The verb 'list' and resource 'maps' are specific, and it differentiates from siblings (create_map, get_map, add_to_map) by focusing on enumeration.

  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?

  Explicitly advises usage 'before get_map or add_to_map' to find an existing map id, giving a clear when-to-use directive. This distinguishes it from alternatives and provides practical context.

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