Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• mongo-aggregateC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Execute aggregation pipeline' implies a read operation (not destructive), it doesn't clarify whether this requires specific permissions, has performance implications, returns results in a particular format, or handles errors. For a database query tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral 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?

  The description is extremely concise at just 6 words, with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core action and target, making it immediately understandable. Every word earns its place by conveying essential information about what the tool does.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness2/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given that this is a database query tool with no annotations, no output schema, and sibling tools that perform similar operations, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what kind of results to expect, how data is returned, whether there are pagination considerations, or how this differs from simpler query operations available in sibling tools.

  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 description coverage is 100%, with all three parameters clearly documented in the schema itself. The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema - it mentions 'aggregation pipeline' which corresponds to the 'pipeline' parameter, but provides no additional context about pipeline structure, stage types, or usage patterns.

  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?

  The description clearly states the action ('Execute aggregation pipeline') and target resource ('on a MongoDB collection'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this aggregation operation from sibling tools like mongo-find-documents or mongo-count-documents, which also query MongoDB collections but with different approaches.

  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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that aggregation pipelines are for complex data processing, transformation, or analysis compared to simpler queries (mongo-find-documents) or counting operations (mongo-count-documents). There's no context about prerequisites or when-not-to-use scenarios.

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

• mongo-create-documentC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool creates a document but fails to mention critical details like required permissions, whether the operation is idempotent, how errors are handled, or what the response looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

  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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without any unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids redundancy, making it easy to parse quickly.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness2/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the tool's complexity as a mutation operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens on success or failure, return values, or error conditions. For a create operation in a database context, more contextual information is needed to make it complete for an AI agent.

  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 has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting all three required parameters (database, collection, document). The description adds no additional semantic information beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without enhancing parameter understanding.

  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?

  The description clearly states the action ('Create a new document') and resource ('in a MongoDB collection'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from its sibling 'mongo-update-document' or explain when to use one versus the other, which prevents a perfect score.

  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 alternatives like 'mongo-update-document' or other siblings. It lacks any context about prerequisites, error conditions, or typical use cases, offering only the basic function without operational guidance.

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

• mongo-delete-documentC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action. It doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits such as whether deletion is permanent, requires specific permissions, has rate limits, or what happens on success/failure (e.g., return values or errors).

  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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, making it easy to parse quickly.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness2/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks context on safety (e.g., irreversible deletion), error handling, or what to expect after invocation, which is crucial for an AI agent to use it correctly.

  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 fully documents all parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema, such as examples of filter usage or implications of 'deleteMany'. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

  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?

  The description clearly states the verb ('Delete') and resource ('documents from a MongoDB collection'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'mongo-update-document' or 'mongo-create-document' beyond the action name, missing explicit sibling distinction.

  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?

  No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites like authentication, when to choose 'deleteMany' over single deletion, or how it compares to siblings like 'mongo-update-document' for partial modifications.

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

• mongo-find-documentsC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature (implied but not explicit), potential performance impacts, error handling, or return format details, leaving significant gaps for agent understanding.

  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, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded and efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness2/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the complexity of a database query tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on return values, error conditions, or behavioral constraints, leaving the agent with incomplete information for proper tool invocation.

  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 description coverage is 100%, so parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying querying with a filter, which aligns with the schema but doesn't provide extra context like query syntax examples or usage tips.

  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?

  The description clearly states the action ('Query') and resource ('documents from a MongoDB collection'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'mongo-aggregate' or 'mongo-count-documents' which also involve querying, so it lacks sibling distinction.

  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?

  No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'mongo-aggregate' for complex queries or 'mongo-count-documents' for counting. The description only states what it does without context for selection among siblings.

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

• mongo-update-documentC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool updates documents but fails to mention critical details such as required permissions, whether updates are atomic or reversible, potential side effects, or error handling. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

  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, direct sentence with no wasted words, making it highly concise and front-loaded. It efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness2/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the complexity of a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on return values, error conditions, or behavioral nuances, leaving the agent with incomplete information for safe and effective use.

  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 has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting all parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or constraints. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, 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.

  Purpose4/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the action ('Update') and resource ('documents in a MongoDB collection'), making the purpose evident. However, it does not distinguish this tool from its sibling 'mongo-create-document' or 'mongo-delete-document' in terms of specific use cases or scope, which prevents a perfect score.

  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 alternatives like 'mongo-create-document' or 'mongo-delete-document', nor does it mention prerequisites or contextual cues. It lacks explicit instructions for selection among siblings, leaving usage ambiguous.

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

• mongo-count-documentsB
  3.1/5.0
  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 of behavioral disclosure. While it states the action ('Count documents'), it doesn't mention performance characteristics (e.g., speed on large collections), permission requirements, whether it's a read-only operation, or what happens with malformed filters. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

  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, clear sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It's perfectly front-loaded and wastes no space, making it highly efficient for an agent to parse.

  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?

  Given the tool's moderate complexity (counting with optional filtering), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It identifies the core function but lacks details on behavior, usage context, or return format. For a tool with three parameters and no structured safety hints, more completeness would be beneficial.

  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 all three parameters (database, collection, filter) with their types and optionality. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline but doesn't provide extra value like explaining filter syntax or examples.

  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?

  The description clearly states the verb ('Count') and resource ('documents in a MongoDB collection'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'mongo-find-documents' or 'mongo-aggregate' which might also provide counting capabilities, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

  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 alternatives. With siblings like 'mongo-find-documents' (which might return counts) and 'mongo-aggregate' (which can perform complex counting operations), there's no indication of when this specific count tool is preferred or what its limitations are.

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

• mongo-list-collectionsB
  3.1/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. While 'List all collections' implies a read-only operation, it doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like whether this requires specific permissions, what format the output takes (e.g., array of collection names), or any rate limits. The description is minimal and lacks operational context.

  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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loads the essential information. Every word earns its place.

  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?

  For a simple read operation with 1 parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but lacks completeness. It doesn't explain what the output looks like (e.g., list of collection names) or mention any constraints. While the tool is straightforward, the description could benefit from slightly more operational context given the absence of annotations.

  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 the single 'database' parameter. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, such as format examples or constraints. With complete schema coverage, 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.

  Purpose4/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the action ('List all collections') and resource ('in a MongoDB database'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'mongo-find-documents' which also lists data but at a document level rather than collection level.

  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 alternatives. It doesn't mention that this is for listing collections (not documents) or compare it to sibling tools like 'mongo-find-documents' which operates at a different level of granularity. No context about prerequisites or exclusions is provided.

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