Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• pitchmachine_get_pitch_urlA
  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 for behavioral transparency. It implies a read-only operation by using 'Fetch' and clarifies it returns state and URL. However, it does not disclose potential errors (e.g., invalid pitch_id), rate limits, or side effects, leaving some gaps.

  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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by concise usage guidance. Every word adds value with no redundancy or fluff.

  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 a single parameter and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers what it returns (state and URL) and when to use it. It does not elaborate on failure modes or the exact structure of 'state', but for a simple getter it is reasonably complete.

  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 input schema covers 100% of the parameter and explicitly states that pitch_id comes from other pitchmachine tools. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

  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 action ('Fetch') and resource ('current state and public share URL for a pitch by pitch_id'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on retrieval and status checking, whereas generate_pitch creates and list_pitches enumerates.

  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 explicit use cases: resuming after a timeout, re-sharing later, and checking status. This gives clear context for when to call the tool, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools.

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

• pitchmachine_list_pitchesA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description must carry the disclosure burden. It reveals that the tool requires an authenticated account and scopes to the user's own pitches, and implies the response contains pitch_ids. However, it lacks details on default time range, ordering, pagination, or error behavior, leaving some behavioral traits undisclosed.

  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, followed by usage contexts and filter names. No filler or redundancy.

  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's simplicity (3 optional params, no output schema) the description covers purpose, use cases, and filters adequately. It even hints at the response containing pitch_ids, which is essential for downstream use. Slight void on exact return structure but acceptable for this tool.

  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 baseline is 3. The description merely names the optional filters (status_filter, since, limit) without adding semantics beyond the schema, so it does not elevate the score above baseline.

  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?

  Clearly states the action (list pitches) and resource (authenticated Pitch Machine account), with specific use cases: discovering pitch_ids and auditing generated pitches. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_receiver, generate_pitch, and get_pitch_url.

  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?

  Provides explicit contexts for use: discovering pitch_ids from outside the agent session and auditing agent-generated pitches. While it doesn't state when-not-to-use or name alternatives, the sibling tools perform distinct actions, so the usage guidance is clear and helpful.

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

• pitchmachine_create_receiverA
  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 the full burden. It discloses the creation side effect, mandatory field requirements for each mode, and the return value (receiver_id). It does not discuss permissions or reversibility, but for a create operation the scope is reasonably transparent.

  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 sentences: the first states the purpose, the second delivers mode-specific constraints and the return value. No fluff, front-loaded with the primary action, and highly efficient for an agent parsing it.

  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?

  Despite having 12 parameters and no output schema, the description provides the key decision rules and the tool's role in the workflow. It does not explain every parameter, but it covers the core logic (mode requirements and next step). The lack of output schema is mitigated by explicitly naming the returned value.

  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 58%, meaning several parameters lack descriptions. The description adds critical meaning by specifying which parameters are mandatory for each audience_mode and that the output receiver_id feeds into another tool. This goes beyond what the schema states, particularly the conditional requirements, though some undocumented parameters remain.

  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 ('Create') and resource ('a new receiver (a prospect or contact)') in Pitch Machine. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like pitchmachine_generate_pitch and pitchmachine_list_pitches by focusing on the creation step, and its output is explicitly tied to the generate step.

  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?

  Provides explicit mode-specific requirements (b2b requires company_name + contact_email, b2c requires receiver_email), which tells the agent what inputs are needed. It also states that the returned receiver_id is used as input to pitchmachine_generate_pitch, offering a clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly list when not to use it or name alternative tools.

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

• pitchmachine_generate_pitchA
  4.7/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  With no annotations, the description fully discloses the poll-until-complete behavior, timeout handling, return URL format, and the important side-effect that it does NOT send the pitch.

  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?

  Three sentences front-load the action and outcome, with the timeout behavior and non-sending caveat in subsequent sentences—no wasted words.

  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 two-parameter tool without an output schema, the description covers success return, timeout status, and next steps (get_pitch_url), making it fully actionable.

  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 covers all parameters with clear descriptions, and the description only reiterates the existing meaning; it adds no new semantic insight beyond what's already 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 tool's function with a specific verb ('Kick off pitch generation') and resource ('existing receiver'), and distinguishes it from siblings by mentioning it returns a share URL and does not send the pitch.

  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 specifies that it works on an existing receiver (prerequisite) and directs users to call pitchmachine_get_pitch_url later if timeout, while also noting that sending the pitch is the agent's job—providing clear usage context and alternatives.

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