Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• findA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses vector search behavior, listing mode, and default parameter values (limit, confidence_threshold). Missing error handling or output format details.

  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?

  Description is a single sentence that front-loads purpose and covers key details. Efficient, but could benefit from bullet points for readability.

  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 5 parameters, output schema present, and no required params, description covers main usage modes and parameter effects. Minor gaps: no examples or error scenarios, but sufficient for typical use.

  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 coverage is 100%, providing baseline of 3. Description adds value by explaining confidence_threshold meaning (lower=more results) and depth levels (0=names, 1=+descriptions, 2=+parameters), beyond schema 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?

  Description clearly states 'Search or list MCP tools' with two distinct modes (with description param vs without). Uses specific verb+resource, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tool 'code'.

  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?

  Explicitly states when to use description param vs not, and mentions pipe separator for multi-query. Does not provide when-not-to-use or alternatives, but context is clear.

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

• codeA
  4.7/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It explains code execution, automatic param mapping, and timeouts. However, it omits warning about potential destructive actions from arbitrary code execution, which is a slight gap.

  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 headings, bullet points, and examples. While it is relatively long, the complexity of the tool justifies the detail. Some redundancy could be trimmed, but it effectively communicates necessary information.

  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 complexity, the description covers execution method, parameter usage, return values (success/failure), timeout, and mentions the sibling tool. With an output schema present, it doesn't need to detail return format, but it still provides useful return structure.

  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?

  Input schema has 2 parameters at 100% description coverage. The description adds significant value by explaining how to use the 'code' parameter with ncp.do examples, such as using 'intent' and 'params' objects, and clarifies the timeout defaults and limits.

  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 executes TypeScript code for automatic tool discovery and parameter mapping. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'find' by explaining the primary method (ncp.do) and fallback direct calls, making the purpose unambiguous.

  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 explicitly tells when to use ncp.do (primary, embedding-based param matching) versus direct namespace calls (when exact tools known). It provides success/failure behavior and retry guidance, offering comprehensive usage instructions.

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