Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• createPromptA
  3.5/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It communicates that the tool creates a prompt (a mutation), but it does not disclose potential side effects such as overwriting an existing ID, validation rules, or required permissions. The curly braces rule is more about input formatting than behavioral side effects.

  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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and includes a constructive example. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or repetition.

  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?

  The tool is simple with two well-documented parameters, but it is a creation tool, and the description does not mention return values, error behavior, or idempotency. With no output schema and sibling tools, a bit more detail about what happens after creation would enhance completeness.

  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%, with both id and contents thoroughly described, including the exact curly-braces rule and example. The description repeats these details without adding new meaning beyond the schema, so it stays at the baseline of 3.

  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 action and resource: 'Create a new Teleprompter prompt.' This is a specific verb+resource pairing that immediately distinguishes it from sibling tools like usePrompt, searchPrompts, and listPrompts. The added example with curly braces further clarifies the tool's purpose.

  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 creating prompts via the verb 'create' and the template variable guidance, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives. No exclusions or alternative references are provided, leaving usage context to be inferred.

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

• listPromptsA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

  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 returns all prompt IDs and their content, which is useful, but does not mention potential behaviors like read-only safety, pagination, or any limitations. It is adequate but not rich.

  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, front-loaded with the primary purpose. The second sentence clarifies return content. No wasted words.

  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 tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what it returns and its scope. It could include more context about sorting or use cases, but for a simple list operation, it is reasonably complete.

  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 0 parameters, so the schema provides complete coverage. The description adds no parameter-specific details, which is unnecessary. According to the rubric, a baseline of 4 applies for 0 params, and the description does not need to compensate.

  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 verb (List) and resource (all available Teleprompter prompts), and specifies the return includes prompt IDs and content. This distinguishes it from siblings like searchPrompts (which would imply filtering) and createPrompt/usePrompt.

  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 retrieving all prompts but does not explicitly contrast with searchPrompts or state when to prefer this over alternatives. The phrase 'all available' hints at scope, but no explicit when/when-not guidance is provided.

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

• searchPromptsA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It states that fuzzy search returns a list of matching prompt IDs and their content, implying a read-only operation. It adds useful context about fuzzy matching and output contents, though it does not explicitly declare safety (e.g., read-only) or address auth/rate limits, which are less critical for a search tool.

  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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and every sentence adds value. It is concise without being under-specified.

  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?

  For a simple search tool, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, return values (list of IDs and content), and discovery context. With no output schema, it adequately describes the result. It does not mention sorting or empty-result behavior, but these are not critical for a basic search.

  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%; both 'query' and 'limit' have clear descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 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 tool's function: 'Fuzzy search the available Teleprompter prompts by text.' It specifically identifies the resource (Teleprompter prompts) and the action (fuzzy search), and distinguishes itself from siblings like listPrompts by emphasizing fuzzy text discovery rather than listing all prompts.

  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 clear context for when to use the tool: 'so the user can discover prompts even if they do not know the exact tag or ID.' This implies it is for discovery when exact identifiers are unknown, but it does not explicitly name alternatives like 'use listPrompts for complete listing' or 'use usePrompt for exact ID lookup.'

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

• usePromptA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries that burden. It explains the process of fetching, following, variable substitution, and asking for missing values. However, it doesn't describe the return format or error behavior when the prompt ID doesn't exist.

  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 moderately concise, with a few sentences covering purpose, example, and variable handling. The grammar error is minor, and no sentence is superfluous.

  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?

  For a tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides adequate context for invocation: when to use, how to fill variables, and what to do if values are missing. It could mention what the tool returns, but it's not critical for execution.

  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?

  The schema describes the 'id' parameter minimally, but the description adds valuable context: how the ID corresponds to a prompt tag in user messages, and how template variables in the prompt are populated from session context.

  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 fetches a prompt and follows its instructions, with a concrete example ('>> new-journal-entry' maps to id 'new-journal-entry'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like createPrompt and searchPrompts.

  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 gives an explicit trigger condition ('If the user has sent a message containing a prompt tag') and demonstrates usage with an example. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the trigger is sufficient for selecting this tool over siblings.

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