Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• drawio_sessionC
  2.4/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations provided, so description must carry behavioral info. It lists actions but gives no details on side effects, permissions, error conditions, or specific behaviors (e.g., does save overwrite? Are checkpoints persistent?). The description is too shallow.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness3/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is very short (one sentence), which is concise, but it omits important details. It sacrifices clarity for brevity, so while not verbose, it is under-specified.

  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's complexity (multiple actions like checkpoint and undo) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain prerequisites, return values, or the exact behavior of each action, leaving the agent with ambiguity.

  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 100% as the action parameter explicitly lists all commands. The tool description merely repeats a subset of the schema's parameter description, adding no new meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose3/5

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

  Description states it manages a drawio session lifecycle, listing actions like new, open, save, checkpoint, undo, redo. This identifies the domain but lacks a clear verb+resource statement. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on session management rather than drawing or queries.

  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 like drawio, drawio_help, or drawio_query. The agent must infer from the name and description, which is insufficient for effective selection.

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

• drawio_queryA
  3.6/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  The description explicitly states 'Read-only', which is a key behavioral trait. Without annotations, this disclosure is crucial. However, no other behaviors (e.g., error handling, performance characteristics) are mentioned, but for a simple query tool, this suffices.

  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 very concise with two short sentences that front-load the purpose. It is efficient, though slightly lacking in contextual depth. Still, it is well-structured and easy to parse.

  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 low complexity and full schema coverage, the description is slightly incomplete. It does not explain what the query returns or how to formulate queries, but the tool is simple. Sibling tools could provide additional context, so a score of 3 is appropriate.

  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 describes the parameter 'q' with 100% coverage. The tool description adds no additional meaning about the query format or allowed values, thus falling at the baseline level 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 verb 'Query' and the resource 'drawio state', and explicitly says 'Read-only', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like drawio (likely for modifications) and drawio_session. The purpose is immediately clear.

  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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives like drawio or drawio_session. The description lacks any contextual information about usage scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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

• drawio_helpA
  3.7/5.0
  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 disclosing behavioral traits. It only states that the tool returns a reference card, without mentioning side effects, idempotency, or what the card contains, which is minimal 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 a single concise sentence that conveys the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It is perfectly sized for its simplicity.

  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?

  While the tool is simple (no parameters, no output schema), the description is vague about the nature of the 'FCP reference card.' It does not specify what information the card contains, which is a gap for an agent needing to decide if this tool provides the needed context.

  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, so the baseline is 4 as per guidelines. The description does not need to add meaning beyond the schema, which already covers all parameters (none).

  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 action ('Returns') and the specific resource ('the drawio FCP reference card'), making it easy for an agent to understand what the tool does. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools (drawio, drawio_query, drawio_session) which have 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 Guidelines3/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It is implied that this tool should be used when a help reference is needed, but the description lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions.

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

• drawioA
  4.7/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  With no annotations, the description thoroughly discloses behavior: it executes operations that modify diagrams, returns response prefixes indicating actions (+, ~, *, -, !, @), and handles all XML structure internally. This fully informs the agent of side effects.

  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 lengthy but well-organized with clear section headings and a structured DSL. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, though it could be slightly more front-loaded with a usage example.

  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?

  The description covers all aspects: shapes, connections, appearance, position, organization, structure, meta, visual export, node types, themes, edge styles, selectors, response prefixes, and conventions. It is fully self-contained and compensates for the lack of output schema and annotations.

  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?

  The single parameter 'ops' is an array of strings, and the description provides an exhaustive DSL with syntax for shapes, connections, styling, and more. This adds immense semantic meaning beyond the schema's minimal description.

  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 'Execute drawio operations' and provides a complete DSL specification, making the tool's purpose unmistakable. It distinguishes itself from siblings like drawio_help (reference) and drawio_query (query) by being the primary execution tool.

  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 includes a CONVENTIONS section that advises calling drawio_help for full reference, and the DSL details implicitly guide usage. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use vs when-not-to-use guidance compared to siblings, though the context is clear.

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