Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• oura_queryA
  4.6/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and non-destructive. The description adds significant non-obvious behavior: it fully chases pagination while Oura's API doesn't, inclusive range correction differing from Oura's native behavior, collection-specific date formats, and the fact that personal_info/ring_configuration ignore ranges. This is exactly the kind of context that goes beyond annotations.

  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 three compact paragraphs with front-loaded core behavior, followed by edge cases and performance guidance. Every sentence carries value—the sample counts justify csv/fields advice, and the pagination warning is critical. No filler, well-structured.

  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 no output schema, the description should help the agent understand return behavior. It covers pagination, inclusiveness, date formats, collection-specific exceptions, and performance. It does not explicitly state the exact JSON envelope or error behavior, but it is otherwise thorough for a moderate-complexity query tool.

  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 descriptions cover all 7 parameters (100%), so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics: equal start/end returns that day, heartrate uses ISO 8601 with time while others use YYYY-MM-DD, and example counts (1,231 samples/day) explain why fields and csv are useful. It does not just repeat 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 opens with a specific verb and object: 'Fetches a COMPLETE Oura collection over the requested range.' It clearly identifies the resource (Oura collection) and differentiates from sibling tools like oura_collections (which lists available collections) by focusing on data retrieval with pagination handling.

  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 provides substantial usage context: when to use csv format for large volumes, when to use the fields parameter for long heartrate ranges, and when latest applies. It also warns about date-format differences and inclusive range semantics. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools beyond 'see oura_collections if unsure,' lacking explicit when-not-to-use alternatives.

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

• oura_checkA
  4.7/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  The description adds crucial safety context beyond the annotations: 'Exposing nothing', 'Returns neither the token nor any health value', and 'It reports the token's LENGTH, never the token'. It also explains the rationale (diagnostic messages may be copied), which is not present in the readOnlyHint/idempotentHint annotations.

  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 compact, with the first sentence stating the core purpose and the second paragraph providing essential security context. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is front-loaded and easy to parse.

  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 zero-parameter diagnostic tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description fully covers behavioral expectations: what it checks, what it returns (token length), what it never returns, and why. There are no gaps that could lead to misuse.

  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 zero parameters, and the schema is empty (100% coverage). Per baseline for 0 params, the description doesn't need to explain parameter semantics, and the description adds appropriate context about what it does with the token.

  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 purpose: 'is there a credential, and does Oura respond?' It identifies a specific diagnostic resource (the Oura connection) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools (oura_collections, oura_query) by focusing on connectivity/credential checking rather than data retrieval.

  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 term 'Self-check' implies usage when you need to verify the connection or diagnose issues, providing clear context. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but since this is a unique diagnostic tool with no overlapping siblings, explicit when-not-to-use guidance isn't necessary.

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

• oura_collectionsA
  4.7/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context by specifying the content (19 collections, their contents, and parameters) and the intended purpose as a lookup reference. It does not contradict annotations, though it doesn't detail return format or structure, which is acceptable given the simple read-only nature.

  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: the first establishes the tool's content, the second provides usage guidance. Every word adds value, and the structure is front-loaded with the primary purpose.

  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 zero-parameter, read-only catalog with no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It states what the tool contains, how many collections, and when to use it. No additional behavioral or return-detail is necessary for the agent to select and invoke it correctly.

  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 zero parameters, and the schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description references parameters taken by collections, which is content detail rather than tool parameter semantics. With no parameters to document, the baseline of 4 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 that this tool provides a catalog of the 19 Oura collections, what each carries, and which parameters it takes. It uses a specific verb ('catalog') and resource ('Oura collections'), distinguishing it from the sibling tools 'oura_query' and 'oura_check'.

  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 advises using this tool 'before oura_query if you are unsure of the exact name', giving an actionable use case and a direct reference to the sibling tool. This provides clear guidance on when to consult the catalog versus querying directly.

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