Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• search_vaultA
  3.5/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, indicating this is a safe read operation with limited scope. The description adds useful context about what gets searched ('notes') and the types of criteria available, but doesn't disclose behavioral aspects like performance characteristics, rate limits, or error conditions. With annotations covering the safety profile, this earns a baseline score.

  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 with a clear purpose statement followed by a comprehensive parameter list. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information. It could be slightly more concise by grouping related parameters, but overall it's efficient and front-loaded with the core functionality.

  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?

  For a complex search tool with 16 parameters and no output schema, the description does a good job explaining inputs but has gaps. It doesn't describe the return format (what the search results look like), error conditions, or performance considerations. The parameter explanations are excellent, but without output information or behavioral context, completeness is limited.

  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 0% schema description coverage (titles only, no descriptions), the description carries the full burden of explaining parameters. It provides detailed semantic information for all 16 parameters, including data types, formats, and usage examples (e.g., 'YYYY-MM-DD' for dates, 'text' or 'regex' for query_type). This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

  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 purpose: 'Search Obsidian vault for notes matching criteria.' This specifies the verb ('search'), resource ('Obsidian vault'), and target ('notes matching criteria'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'browse_vault_structure' or 'get_note_content', which prevents a perfect score.

  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. There's no mention of sibling tools like 'browse_vault_structure' (for exploring structure) or 'get_note_content' (for retrieving specific note content), nor any context about when search is appropriate versus other approaches.

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

• get_note_contentA
  3.6/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, indicating a safe, read-only operation with a closed world. The description adds context by specifying 'full content and metadata,' which hints at the return format, but doesn't detail aspects like error handling, rate limits, or auth needs. No contradiction with annotations exists.

  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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by a concise parameter explanation. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it efficient 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 tool's low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema), annotations cover safety, and the description adds parameter semantics and purpose. However, it lacks details on return values, error cases, or how it differs from siblings, leaving some gaps for an AI agent to infer usage.

  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?

  With 0% schema description coverage and 1 parameter, the description compensates by explaining 'path: Full path to the note within the vault,' adding meaning beyond the bare schema. It clarifies the parameter's purpose and format, though it could provide more examples or constraints.

  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 purpose: 'Get the full content and metadata of a specific note by path.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('note'), and scope ('full content and metadata'), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'browse_vault_structure' or 'search_vault' beyond the 'specific note by path' aspect.

  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 by specifying 'by path,' suggesting it's for retrieving a known note, but it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_vault' for unknown notes or 'browse_vault_structure' for exploring. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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

• browse_vault_structureA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, indicating this is a safe read operation with deterministic results. The description adds valuable context about default behaviors (browsing from vault root, folders-only by default) and the recursive option, which goes beyond what annotations provide. No contradictions with annotations exist.

  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 perfectly structured: a clear purpose statement followed by a bullet-point style explanation of each parameter. Every sentence earns its place, with no wasted words. The information is front-loaded with the core purpose first.

  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?

  For a directory browsing tool with 3 parameters, no output schema, and good annotations, the description covers the essential behavior and parameters adequately. However, it doesn't describe the return format (e.g., what structure is returned, error conditions), which would be helpful given the lack of output schema.

  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?

  With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries full burden for parameter meaning. It successfully explains all three parameters: 'path' (starting location with default), 'include_files' (files inclusion toggle with default), and 'recursive' (nested listing). This compensates well for the schema's lack of descriptions.

  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 verb ('Browse') and resource ('vault directory structure'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_note_content' (which retrieves content) and 'search_vault' (which searches), but doesn't explicitly mention these distinctions in the description itself.

  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 exploring directory structure rather than retrieving content or searching, but doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_vault'. The parameter descriptions suggest default behaviors (folders only, non-recursive), which gives some contextual hints.

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