Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• parcel_list_deliveriesA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by specifying the scope ('complete... list'), the included fields ('status, expected dates, and every cached carrier event'), and the underlying endpoint. It does not contradict annotations, and the extra details about data richness provide meaningful 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no filler. Every phrase adds value: the completeness, the included data types, and the endpoint coverage. It is appropriately sized for a tool with only two simple 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?

  The tool has 2 simple parameters, no output schema, and strong annotations. The description explains what the tool returns (delivery list with status, dates, events) but does not clarify the output format (markdown vs json), default behavior of filter_mode, or any pagination/ordering. Given the simplicity, a moderate score is warranted—it covers the basics but leaves some usage-relevant gaps.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters2/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 50%: 'filter_mode' has a description, but 'response_format' lacks one. The tool description does not compensate for this gap; it mentions 'recent or active' which aligns with filter_mode but does not explain how to set it or introduce the response_format parameter. With the schema leaving one parameter undocumented and the description providing no parameter-level detail, the semantics are weak.

  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 a specific verb ('Return'), a resource ('Parcel's complete recent or active delivery list'), and the content ('status, expected dates, and every cached carrier event'). It inherently distinguishes from sibling tools like 'parcel_get_delivery' which targets a single delivery, and 'parcel_list_carriers' which lists carriers. The endpoint reference 'GET /external/deliveries/' reinforces the purpose.

  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 via 'recent or active delivery list' and 'complete' but does not explicitly state when to choose this instead of alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions like filtering or pagination. Unlike an ideal case with explicit alternative references, the guidance here is only implicit, leaving the agent to infer the tool's role from the name and context.

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

• parcel_find_carriersA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnly=true, openWorld=true, idempotent=true, and destructive=false, so safety is covered. The description adds value by specifying the search scope ('complete catalog') and the search keys (code/display name), plus a workflow hint. It does not discuss output format or pagination, but with annotations present, this is acceptable.

  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, front-loaded sentence with no fluff. Every phrase contributes meaning: action, resource, search criteria, and workflow context. No redundant or extraneous information.

  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 read-only search tool with rich annotations and schema, the description provides sufficient purpose and usage context. It could be more complete by explicitly naming the alternative sibling tool or describing the response format, but the current description is adequate.

  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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does explain the 'query' parameter implicitly by saying the search is by code or display name. However, 'limit' and 'response_format' are not elaborated; they are somewhat self-explanatory but the description does not fully carry the burden for all parameters.

  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 uses specific language: 'Search the complete Parcel carrier catalog by code or display name before adding a delivery.' This clearly identifies the action (search), the resource (catalog), the scope (complete), and the search criteria (code/display name). It also distinguishes itself from sibling list_carriers by focusing on searching rather than listing.

  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 a clear usage context: 'before adding a delivery.' This implies the tool should be used as a prerequisite step. However, it does not explicitly contrast with parcel_list_carriers (the sibling that lists carriers) or state when to use one over the other, so it lacks exclusions.

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

• parcel_get_deliveryA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds context that events are 'cached' and limited to 'active or recent' API response, which informs the user about data freshness and scope. No contradiction.

  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?

  A single, front-loaded sentence that is wholly informative; no filler or redundancy.

  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 three-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, target, and return value. It does not explain the impact of filter_mode and response_format, but the schema supplies those defaults. The description gives enough context for a straightforward use case.

  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 0%. The description clarifies the purpose of 'tracking_number' by emphasizing exact match, and hints at 'filter_mode' via 'active or recent'. However, it provides no guidance on 'response_format' default or alternatives, leaving the schema enums to carry that meaning.

  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 uses the specific verb 'Find' and identifies the resource as 'one delivery' via 'exact tracking number', with the outcome 'return all of its cached events'. This clearly differentiates from sibling 'parcel_list_deliveries' which lists multiple deliveries.

  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 implicitly conveys that this tool is for locating a specific delivery when the exact tracking number is known, distinguishing it from listing tools. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools by name, 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.

• parcel_list_carriersA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already declare the tool safe (readOnly, non-destructive, idempotent). The description adds behavioral context beyond that: the data is 'daily-updated' (so results change over time) and 'requires no API key' (auth simplicity). It also cites the exact GET endpoint, providing transparency about what operation is performed.

  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 primary purpose, no filler. Every word earns its place: purpose, update frequency, scope, endpoint, and auth requirement are all covered efficiently.

  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 the tool's low complexity (one optional param, no output schema), the description is complete. It explains the return value (map of codes to names), the data freshness, the endpoint, and auth requirements. Annotations cover safety, so there are no significant missing details for selection and invocation.

  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 one optional parameter (response_format) with an enum and default, which is self-explanatory. The description does not mention this parameter, but the schema already conveys its meaning. While schema description coverage is 0%, the simple enum-based param does not require additional explanation, so the description adds no specific parameter semantics but does not create a gap.

  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 'Return the complete, daily-updated map of Parcel carrier codes to names,' which is a specific verb+resource with scope. It also distinguishes from siblings like find_carriers by emphasizing completeness and daily updates, and names the endpoint, leaving no ambiguity about what it does.

  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—this returns a complete, daily-updated mapping and requires no API key—so an agent knows when to use it for a full list. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives like find_carriers, but the scope is well-defined, giving sufficient guidance without needing explicit exclusions.

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

• parcel_auth_statusA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds the valuable behavioral detail that the tool does not make an external call to Parcel, which is beyond what the annotations cover.

  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 of 10 words, front-loaded and free of unnecessary detail. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

  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 simple tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description fully conveys its purpose, scope, and safety profile. The annotations complement the text, and no critical information is missing.

  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 the schema is empty. Since there are no parameters to document, the baseline of 4 applies and the description does not need to compensate.

  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 uses the verb 'Inspect' and precisely identifies the resource: Parcel credential discovery and write-tool availability. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like parcel_list_deliveries or parcel_get_delivery.

  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 phrase 'without calling Parcel' provides clear context that this is a safe preflight check for credential status. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or when not to use it, so it falls short of full usage guidance.

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