Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• compress_contextA
  3.7/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, which cover behavioral traits. The description adds minimal extra context, only specifying the output format (ContextBridge handoff block), which is useful but not behavioral.

  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 sentence of 11 words, efficiently stating the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded with the verb.

  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 simple tool with 2 parameters, full schema coverage, and an output schema present, the description is complete enough for an agent to understand the tool's function.

  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 both parameters with 100% coverage. The description does not add any parameter-specific information beyond what is in the 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 the verb 'compresses' and the resource 'raw conversation transcript' and the outcome 'structured ContextBridge handoff block'. This distinguishes it from siblings like say_hello and resume_context.

  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 its siblings (say_hello, format_for_target, resume_context). There is no mention of prerequisites, alternatives, or when not to use it.

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

• say_helloA
  3.7/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It labels the tool as 'dummy' implying no side effects, but does not describe output or any other behavior beyond greeting. 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 efficiently communicates the tool's purpose with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and appropriately 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?

  For a simple dummy tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is complete. It adequately covers the tool's function and purpose without missing information.

  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% for the only parameter 'name'. The schema already describes it as 'The name to greet'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 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 tool's purpose as a dummy tool to confirm server connectivity, with a specific verb 'confirm' and resource 'ContextBridge MCP server'. It distinguishes from sibling tools (compress_context, format_for_target, resume_context) which handle different tasks.

  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 the tool is for testing connectivity but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like the sibling tools. No context on when not to use is provided.

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

• format_for_targetA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint true. The description adds no further behavioral traits, but does not contradict annotations. No contradiction detected.

  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?

  Single sentence, no redundancy, front-loaded with key action. Every word 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 complex nested context_block and output schema exists, the description is sufficient. However, it could hint at output format or constraints, but not necessary due to rich schema.

  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 both parameters thoroughly. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what's in the 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 the verb 'Formats' and the resource: 'compressed ContextBridge handoff block' into 'paste-ready opening prompt'. It distinguishes from siblings like compress_context (compression) and resume_context (resumption).

  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 when to use or when not to use, nor alternatives mentioned. Context implies it's for formatting compressed blocks for destination platforms, but no guidance on excluding cases.

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

• resume_contextA
  4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds context about the packaging process and destination readiness, which is useful but does not introduce new behavioral traits beyond what annotations imply.

  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, complete sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action verb 'Packages' and conveys the core purpose efficiently.

  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 complexity of the input (2 required parameters, one deeply nested with 12+ subfields), the description is concise but adequate. The presence of annotations and an output schema (not shown) reduces the burden. However, a brief note about what a 'ContextBridge handoff block' is could improve completeness for unfamiliar agents.

  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 detailed descriptions for each parameter (target enum with platforms, context_block with nested structure). The description does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 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 'Packages', the resource 'stored ContextBridge handoff block', and the result 'destination-ready landing bundle for resuming the conversation on another AI platform'. It distinguishes from siblings like compress_context and format_for_target by focusing on resuming, not compressing or formatting.

  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 resuming conversations across platforms but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., compress_context, format_for_target). No 'when not to use' or comparison guidance is provided.

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