Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• forgetC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It states 'Delete' indicating destructiveness, but does not detail permanence, reversibility, authorization requirements, or effects on other users. This minimal transparency leaves the agent unaware of important behavioral traits.

  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 consists of two front-loaded sentences: the first states the primary action, the second provides a key constraint. Every word serves a purpose, with no redundancy or filler. It is appropriately sized for a simple deletion tool.

  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 destructive nature (no annotations) and three optional parameters, the description is insufficient. It does not clarify what happens if no filter is provided, whether deletions are cascading, or if confirmation is needed. An output schema exists but return values are not described. The brief text leaves significant gaps for an AI agent.

  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 coverage is 100% with each parameter described (tags, project, memory_ids). The description adds only the general constraint 'Specify at least one filter criterion,' which does not enhance understanding beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already documents parameters well.

  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 'Delete stored memories,' which specifies the verb (delete) and resource (stored memories). It distinguishes from sibling tools (list_memories, recall, remember) by being the deletion tool. However, it could be more specific about what 'stored memories' encompasses (e.g., user-specific or global).

  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 a constraint ('Specify at least one filter criterion') but offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_memories or recall. It does not explain scenarios for deletion, prerequisites, or consequences.

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

• list_memoriesA
  3.7/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description must convey all behavioral traits. It implies a read operation but does not mention pagination, result limits, or data sensitivity, though the schema hints at pagination. Adequate for a simple list but lacks explicit disclosure.

  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 a single concise sentence with no waste. It is appropriately sized but lacks structured formatting that could improve scanability.

  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 simplicity (list with optional filtering), the description is mostly complete. An output schema exists, so return values are covered. No major gaps, but could mention pagination or read-only nature.

  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 description adds limited value beyond the schema. The phrase 'optional filtering' summarizes the filtering parameters but provides no additional semantic detail.

  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 'Browse and list stored memories with optional filtering' uses a specific verb (browse/list) and resource (memories), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like forget, recall, and remember.

  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 for listing with optional filtering but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings or when not to use it.

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

• recallA
  3.7/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are present, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states that it returns memories, without mentioning side effects, authorization needs, or whether it's read-only. This is minimal disclosure.

  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 consists of two concise, front-loaded sentences: the action and the result. Every word adds value, with zero waste.

  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 5 parameters (1 required) and full schema coverage plus an output schema, the description is adequate but minimal. It does not explain the semantic similarity mechanism or provide context beyond the basic purpose, leaving some gaps for a complex search 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?

  Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, resulting in the baseline score of 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 searches memories by semantic similarity and returns relevant results, using specific verbs 'search' and 'returns'. It distinguishes from siblings (forget, list_memories, remember) as a retrieval operation.

  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 implies use for semantic search, and sibling tool names clarify alternatives (e.g., 'list_memories' for listing, 'remember' for storing). However, no explicit when-not-to-use or criteria for choosing between tools is provided.

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

• rememberA
  3.7/5.0
  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 mentions that content is embedded for semantic search, which is a key behavioral trait, but it does not disclose persistence, side effects, or any other behaviors beyond storage.

  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. Every word is necessary and adds value, with no wasted content.

  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 has an output schema (not shown but indicated), the description does not mention return values. It also does not guide usage of optional parameters like tags or importance, leaving some gaps for a complete understanding.

  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 has 100% description coverage for parameters. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline score of 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 uses a specific verb 'Store' and resource 'memory', clearly stating the action. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'forget' (removal) and 'recall' (retrieval) by emphasizing storage for later recall.

  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 use when you want to store a memory for later recall via semantic search, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_memories' or 'recall'. No when-not or exclusion criteria are provided.

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