Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• search_componentsA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the search behavior (local DB + live API) and result fields, but omits details like sorting, pagination, rate limits, or potential caching of pricing. Adequate but could be more transparent.

  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 concise with no wasted sentences. It front-loads the purpose, then provides examples and result highlights in a structured list. Every sentence adds value.

  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 schema covers all parameters and the description explains result fields, the tool is well-documented. However, it lacks mention of pagination or sorting behavior. Overall complete for a 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 coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for all parameters. The description adds no new semantic detail beyond the schema examples, so baseline is 3. It does not compensate further.

  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 starts with a clear verb-object 'Search JLCPCB components by keyword with live stock and pricing', and provides examples and result fields. It effectively distinguishes itself from siblings like database_status and get_component_details by focusing on search with live data.

  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 when to use this tool (searching for components with live availability) and distinguishes from siblings via context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like get_component_details for specific parts.

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

• database_statusA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  The description outlines the kind of information returned (location, size, age, last update time) and implies a read-only operation. No annotations are provided, but the description sufficiently conveys the tool's behavior for a simple getter.

  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 with no waste. The first sentence states the main purpose, and the second lists example return fields. It is front-loaded and efficient.

  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?

  With an output schema present and no parameters, the description is sufficient. It lists typical return fields (location, size, age, last update time), providing useful 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 no parameters, and the input schema is empty with 100% coverage. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics, and it adds no extra parameter info, which 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 clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'status and information about the local component database'. It effectively distinguishes from siblings: get_component_details (component-level), refresh_database (mutative), search_components (search).

  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 does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus its siblings. While the purpose suggests it is for database-level status checks, it lacks direct contrast or usage conditions.

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

• refresh_databaseA
  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. It discloses that the tool downloads ~50MB, takes 5-10 minutes, and rebuilds the database. It does not mention authentication, concurrency safety, or whether the operation is destructive, but the major behavioral traits are covered.

  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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then details and usage frequency. No unnecessary words, every sentence adds value.

  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 no annotations and an output schema (though not shown), the description covers the main aspects: action, size, time, and frequency. Could mention interrupt safety or backup behavior for 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, so baseline is 4. The description explains the tool's action without needing parameter details. It adds context beyond the empty 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 refreshes the component database to get latest parts from JLCPCB. It distinguishes from sibling tools (database_status, get_component_details, search_components) which are query or read-only tools.

  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 recommends monthly use to stay current with new components. It does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives, but the frequency guidance is helpful.

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

• get_component_detailsA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so description carries full burden. It explicitly lists the types of data returned (specifications, stock, pricing, datasheet, images), which gives good insight into behavior. It does not mention any side effects, but as a read-only fetch tool, that 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?

  Two concise sentences plus an example line. The purpose is front-loaded, and every sentence adds value without redundancy. Perfectly sized.

  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 simplicity (one parameter, clear output via description), and the existence of an output schema (implied), the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, how to use it, and what data it returns.

  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?

  Schema has 100% description coverage with a clear description of the 'lcsc' parameter. The description adds value by providing an example and clarifying that it is a JLCPCB part number, going beyond the schema's basic 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?

  Description clearly states 'Get detailed information for a specific JLCPCB component' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_components (searching vs. fetching a single component) and database_status/refresh_database (management operations).

  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 an example showing how to use the tool (lcsc='C17976') and implies usage context: when you need detailed data for a known component. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives like search_components for broader queries.

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