Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get_current_web_app_urlA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the return content (URL and QR code) but lacks details on format (e.g., image vs. text), potential errors, or authentication needs. It's adequate but not rich in behavioral context.

  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?

  It's front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence and usage guidance in the second, with zero wasted words. Every sentence adds clear value without 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 simple, parameterless tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and usage well. However, without annotations or output schema, it could benefit from more detail on return format or error handling, slightly limiting 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?

  The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, earning a baseline score of 4 for this context.

  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's purpose with specific verbs ('returns') and resources ('connection URL and QR code for the AFK Mode web app'), and distinguishes it from siblings by focusing on app access rather than status, decisions, or notifications.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines5/5

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

  It provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('when the user asks for the AFK app link or QR code'), which clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like get_afk_status (status checks) or get_user_decision (decision-making).

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

• get_user_decisionA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing key behaviors: it blocks until response/timeout, has timeout handling, and requires AFK mode. It doesn't mention error cases or response format, but covers essential operational context.

  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, zero waste. First sentence states core functionality, second provides critical usage rules and type guidance. Every phrase earns its place with essential 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 complex 7-parameter tool with no annotations or output schema, the description provides strong context on when/how to use it and behavioral constraints. It could mention response format or error handling, but covers the most critical aspects given the complexity.

  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 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by mentioning type usage examples, but doesn't provide additional semantics beyond what's in the schema descriptions.

  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's purpose with specific verbs ('sends', 'blocks') and resources ('decision request to mobile client'), and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying it's for user decisions during AFK mode, unlike status-checking or notification tools.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines5/5

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

  Explicitly states when to use ('Only call when AFK mode is active') and provides clear alternatives for different decision types ('Use type 'confirm' for yes/no, 'choice' for selecting from options, etc.'), helping the agent choose appropriately.

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

• notify_session_progressA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it specifies the prerequisite conditions (AFK mode active), indicates immediate return behavior ('Returns immediately'), and explains how different categories should be used. However, it doesn't mention potential side effects like network errors or client response handling.

  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?

  Three tightly focused sentences with zero waste: first states purpose and prerequisites, second describes return behavior, third provides category usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place by adding essential information not found elsewhere.

  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 tool with 7 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description provides excellent contextual completeness by covering prerequisites, behavioral traits, and usage guidelines. The only minor gap is lack of information about return values or error conditions, but this is reasonable given the tool's complexity level.

  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%, providing comprehensive parameter documentation. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, only mentioning category usage guidelines which partially overlap with the enum description. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does most of the work.

  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 specific action ('Sends a progress update') and target ('to the connected mobile client'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_afk_status or get_user_decision that perform different functions. It goes beyond restating the name by specifying the communication context.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines5/5

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

  Explicitly states when to use ('Only call this when AFK mode is active (afkMode: true and clientConnected: true)') and provides detailed guidance on category usage ('Use category 'milestone' for significant steps, 'error' for failures, 'info' for routine updates'), offering clear alternatives within the tool itself.

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

• get_afk_statusA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior4/5

  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 effectively describes the tool's behavior by explaining the return values (afkMode and clientConnected status) and their implications for routing decisions. However, it lacks details on error handling, response format, or any rate limits, leaving some behavioral aspects unspecified.

  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 well-structured and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose. Each sentence adds value by explaining usage scenarios and routing logic. However, it could be slightly more concise by combining some conditional statements, though all content is relevant and earns its place.

  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 complexity (simple status check with 0 parameters) and lack of annotations/output schema, the description is largely complete. It covers purpose, usage, and behavioral implications. However, it does not specify the exact return format (e.g., JSON structure) or error cases, which could enhance completeness for an AI 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?

  The tool has 0 parameters, with 100% schema description coverage. The description does not need to add parameter semantics, so a baseline of 4 is appropriate. It appropriately focuses on the tool's purpose and usage without unnecessary parameter details.

  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 the tool's purpose: 'Returns the current AFK mode status.' It uses a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('AFK mode status'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'get_user_decision' or 'notify_session_progress' which perform different actions.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines5/5

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

  The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool: 'Call this before every interaction to decide whether to route through AFK MCP tools or native chat.' It also details specific conditions (e.g., 'If afkMode is true and clientConnected is true...') and mentions alternatives like 'native chat' and sibling tools, offering clear context for decision-making.

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