Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• redmine_paths_infoB
  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 does not mention whether the tool is read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, or any side effects. For an info tool, a read-only hint would be expected, but it is absent. The description only states the output format.

  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 concise and well-structured, with a clear first sentence and an Args/Returns section that organizes input and output. It avoids unnecessary elaboration, though the example could be more precise.

  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?

  Given the tool's low complexity (one parameter, simple string output) and the presence of an output schema, the description sufficiently covers input and output. However, it lacks contextual details like error handling or performance implications.

  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 0% description coverage, so the description compensates by explaining the 'path_templates' parameter as a list of path templates with an example. However, it does not specify item types or constraints beyond the example, leaving some ambiguity.

  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 function: getting full path information including MCP capabilities. It specifies that it returns Redmine API specifications and MCP server capabilities. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like redmine_paths_list, which may list available paths.

  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 (e.g., redmine_paths_list) or any prerequisites, limitations, or scenarios. It only describes what the tool does without contextual usage advice.

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

• redmine_uploadB
  3.4/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations provided, and the description lacks details on side effects (e.g., file storage, permissions), rate limits, or idempotency. It only states the basic operation without behavioral traits beyond the core action.

  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 relatively concise with clear Args and Returns sections. However, the Args section partially duplicates schema information, which could be omitted for brevity. Still well-structured.

  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 uploads files and has siblings, the description covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks usage context, error handling details, and behavioral traits. The presence of an output schema (not shown) reduces the need for return value details, but completeness is average.

  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?

  Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaning for both parameters: 'file_path' as 'Fully qualified path' and 'description' as 'Optional description'. This compensates for the missing schema comments, though additional constraints (e.g., file size) are absent.

  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 explicitly states 'Upload a file to Redmine and get a token for attachment,' clearly identifying the action, resource, and outcome. It distinguishes from siblings like redmine_download, redmine_paths_info, etc., which serve different purposes.

  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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., redmine_request for non-file operations). No prerequisites or exclusions mentioned, leaving the agent to infer use cases.

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

• redmine_downloadA
  3.5/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description must bear full behavioral burden. It mentions the return format (YAML with status, path, errors) but omits critical details such as file overwrite behavior, authorization requirements, error handling for missing attachments, or network requirements. These gaps significantly reduce transparency.

  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 structured with a clear first sentence stating the purpose, followed by an Args section and a Returns section. Slightly verbose in listing args, but every sentence adds information. Could be more concise but is effective.

  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 description covers the core functionality and return format, but lacks behavioral context such as overwrite behavior, error scenarios, or prerequisites. Given the tool's simplicity, it is minimally adequate but not thorough.

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

  Parameters5/5

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

  With schema coverage at 0%, the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter's meaning and behavior (e.g., filename is optional and determined from data if omitted). This adds significant value beyond the schema's basic titles and types.

  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 downloads an attachment from Redmine and saves it to a local file, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like redmine_upload (opposite action) and redmine_request (generic), making the purpose unambiguous.

  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 or when not to use this tool compared to alternatives like redmine_request or redmine_upload. It lacks explicit exclusions or context for optimal use, leaving the agent to infer usage from the purpose alone.

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

• redmine_requestA
  3.6/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  The description explains that the tool makes HTTP requests and returns a YAML string with status code, body, and error message. However, with no annotations, it does not disclose authentication requirements, potential side effects, or rate limits. The behavior is partially described.

  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 structured with Args and Returns sections, and the one-line summary is front-loaded. It is concise and covers all parameters without unnecessary verbosity.

  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 5 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no annotations, the description provides adequate parameter explanations and return format. However, it lacks broader contextual notes like error handling or rate limits, leaving some 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?

  Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description explains each parameter in detail: path (endpoint), method (default get), data (for POST/PUT), params (query params), mcp_filter (for MCP filtering). This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema.

  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 it makes a request to the Redmine API, which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like redmine_download, redmine_upload, etc., which are specialized operations.

  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 generic request tool versus the specialized sibling tools (e.g., redmine_paths_info for path discovery, redmine_download for downloads). The description does not include when-not-to-use or alternatives.

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

• redmine_paths_listA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, description carries the burden. It states it returns a YAML string listing path templates. No side effects are implied; the tool is read-only. Behavior is transparent given its function.

  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?

  Extremely concise: two short sentences plus a return type line. No wasted words, information is front-loaded and immediately actionable.

  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 no-parameter listing tool, the description fully covers purpose, return format, and relationship to sibling. Context signals (0 params, output schema) confirm completeness.

  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?

  No parameters exist; schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter info (unnecessary). Baseline of 4 applies for zero-parameter tools.

  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?

  Clear verb-resource pair: 'Return a list of available API paths'. Explicitly distinguishes from sibling 'redmine_paths_info' by noting it gives full specification, making this tool's scope unambiguous.

  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 explicit usage guidance: mentions alternative 'redmine_paths_info' for full spec. No explicit when-not-to-use, but given the tool's simplicity, the guidance is sufficient and clear.

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