Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• npm_compareC
  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 for behavioral disclosure. While 'compare' implies a read-only operation, it doesn't specify what aspects are compared (versions, dependencies, downloads), whether authentication is needed, rate limits, or what format the comparison output takes. 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 perfectly concise - a single sentence that directly states the tool's purpose with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded and immediately understandable without unnecessary elaboration.

  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 comparison tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what gets compared, the format of results, or how this differs from sibling tools. Given the complexity of package comparison and lack of structured metadata, more context is needed for effective 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?

  The schema has 100% description coverage, with both parameters clearly documented as package names. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without providing extra value.

  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 ('compare') and resource ('two npm packages'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from its siblings like npm_info or npm_search, which might also provide comparative information in different ways.

  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 like npm_info (for single package details) or npm_search (for finding packages). It simply states what the tool does without context about appropriate use cases or exclusions.

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

• npm_depsC
  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 it 'lists dependencies' but doesn't describe what the output looks like (e.g., format, structure), whether it includes dev dependencies, version ranges, or any limitations like rate limits or authentication needs. 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 directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, 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?

  Given the tool has no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the output looks like (e.g., a list of dependencies, their versions), which is critical for a tool that lists data. Without this, an agent cannot fully understand how to use the tool effectively.

  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, with the 'name' parameter documented as 'Package name'. The description doesn't add any additional meaning beyond this, such as examples or constraints on package names. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

  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 'List dependencies of an npm package' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('dependencies of an npm package'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from its siblings like npm_info or npm_versions, which might also provide dependency information, so it doesn't reach the highest 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?

  The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like npm_info or npm_search. It doesn't specify if this tool is for getting only dependencies versus other package metadata, or any prerequisites or constraints for usage.

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

• npm_infoC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Get detailed info') but doesn't describe what 'detailed info' includes, whether it requires authentication, rate limits, error handling, or response format. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation 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?

  The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple 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?

  Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't specify what 'detailed info' entails, leaving the agent uncertain about the return values. For a tool with no structured output documentation, this creates ambiguity in 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?

  The schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'name' fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as examples of package names or constraints. 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.

  Purpose4/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed info about an npm package'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't specifically differentiate from siblings like npm_versions or npm_search, which might provide overlapping information, so it doesn't reach the highest score of 5.

  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 like npm_versions or npm_search. It lacks explicit context, exclusions, or named alternatives, leaving the agent to infer usage based on tool names alone.

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

• npm_searchC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Search' but doesn't describe what the search returns (e.g., list of packages with basic info), whether it's a read-only operation, any rate limits, or authentication needs. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior beyond the basic action.

  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 with zero waste—it directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent 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?

  Given the complexity of a search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the search results include (e.g., package names, versions, descriptions), how results are ordered, or any limitations (e.g., pagination). This leaves the agent with insufficient context to fully understand the tool's functionality.

  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 description coverage is 100%, with clear documentation for both parameters (query and size). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as examples of search queries or context for the size parameter. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

  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 ('Search') and resource ('npm packages'), and specifies the search method ('by keyword'). However, it doesn't differentiate this search tool from potential sibling tools like npm_compare or npm_info, which might also involve searching or retrieving package information.

  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 like npm_info (for detailed package info) or npm_compare (for comparing packages). It lacks explicit context about use cases, exclusions, or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the name alone.

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

• npm_versionsC
  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 the tool lists versions but doesn't mention key traits like whether it's read-only, safe to use, or has rate limits. It also omits details about output format, such as what 'recent' means or how versions are ordered, which is crucial for a tool with no output schema.

  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 any wasted words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse and understand 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?

  Given the complexity of listing package versions, the lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain behavioral aspects like safety, output format, or error handling, leaving significant gaps for the agent to navigate without additional 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 description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the input schema provides, as schema description coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for both parameters. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate because the schema adequately documents the parameters, though the description doesn't enhance understanding further.

  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 ('List') and resource ('recent versions of an npm package'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like npm_info or npm_compare, which might also provide version-related information, so it doesn't reach the highest 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?

  The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like npm_info or npm_compare. It lacks any context about prerequisites, such as needing a package name, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name and parameters alone.

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

• npm_downloadsB
  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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but doesn't describe how it behaves: no information on rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or what the output looks like (e.g., format, units). This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand operational constraints.

  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 any fluff. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

  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 moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on behavior, output format, and usage context. Without annotations or output schema, more elaboration would be helpful for an agent to use it effectively.

  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 both parameters (name and period with enum values). The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining what 'download statistics' entails or how the period affects results. 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.

  Purpose4/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('download statistics for an npm package'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like npm_info or npm_versions, but the focus on download statistics is specific enough to imply 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 like npm_info (which might include download stats) or npm_compare. There's no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or specific contexts where this tool is preferred over others.

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