Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• generate_videoC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions generation from text and optional image, but does not disclose any side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or the impact of 'none configured' providers. The mutation nature is implied but not elaborated.

  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 two sentences long, front-loads the primary purpose, and avoids redundancy. It is concise but could be slightly more informative without being verbose.

  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 (8 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, no annotations), the description is too brief. It lacks details on behavior, return values, provider limits, duration constraints, and error conditions, leaving significant gaps for an 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?

  Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context about the optional image (aligns with imagePath) and notes provider configuration status, but otherwise does not add significant meaning beyond the schema.

  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 tool generates a video from a text prompt using AI, with an optional image as the first frame. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like generate_image, but the purpose is specific and unambiguous.

  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 minimal usage guidance: it notes the optional image and the lack of configured providers. It does not specify when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., when to use generate_image instead) or any prerequisites.

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

• generate_imageB
  3.1/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations provided. The description does not disclose behavioral traits such as what the tool returns, side effects, rate limits, or authentication needs. It only states the basic function and available providers, which is insufficient.

  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?

  Description is very short and to the point, with no redundant words. However, the phrase 'Available: none configured' is cryptic and could be clearer.

  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?

  Despite having 6 parameters and no output schema, the description does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., file path, base64), nor does it clarify behavior for optional parameters like provider auto-selection. It is insufficient for an agent to use effectively.

  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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds provider names with model aliases (e.g., openai (DALL-E)) and mentions availability, but this is marginal value beyond the schema's parameter descriptions.

  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 the tool generates an image from a text prompt using AI, listing supported providers. It distinguishes from sibling tools like edit_image, generate_audio, generate_video, transcribe_audio, and list_providers by focusing on image generation.

  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?

  Description lacks guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like edit_image. It lists providers but does not explain selection criteria, nor does it specify prerequisites or context for usage.

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

• edit_imageB
  3.3/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description should cover behavioral traits. It mentions providers and 'none configured' but does not disclose whether edits are destructive, if the original is preserved, or what happens on failure. Key mutability and safety information is missing.

  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 short and front-loaded. The second sentence about 'Available: none configured' is ambiguous and may confuse agents, slightly reducing conciseness. Otherwise efficient.

  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?

  With 5 parameters, nested objects, and multiple providers, the description lacks details on providerOptions, outputDirectory behavior, and what happens when no providers are configured. Output schema absence increases need for description, which is insufficient.

  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 descriptions for all parameters. The tool description adds little beyond restating path and prompt, and listing providers already described in schema. Baseline 3 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 edits existing images using AI, with specific references to providing a path and prompt. It distinguishes from sibling tools like generate_image which create new images.

  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 editing existing images but does not explicitly exclude create-focused tools or mention when to use alternatives. It lacks guidance on prerequisites or context.

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

• generate_audioB
  3.4/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions providers and a cryptic 'Available: none configured'. It fails to mention that the tool generates audio files, uses external APIs, saves files to outputDirectory, or any rate limits or costs.

  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 concise with three sentences. It front-loads the core purpose. However, the last sentence 'Available: none configured' is vague and potentially confusing, slightly detracting from clarity.

  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 complexity (7 parameters, multiple providers, nested objects) and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It omits the overall workflow (e.g., saving audio files) and does not explain how providerOptions work beyond a single example.

  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 baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value: it highlights ElevenLabs mode for sound effects and lists providers. It does not expand on voice, speed, format, or outputDirectory beyond 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 'Generate audio from text using AI' and specifies text-to-speech and sound effects. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like transcribe_audio (speech-to-text) and other media generators (image, video) by focusing on audio output.

  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 lists providers and mentions ElevenLabs sound effect mode, implying use cases. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like transcribe_audio or when not to use it, nor does it provide clear context for selecting providers.

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

• list_providersA
  3.7/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It only restates the tool's action ('list all...') without revealing any behavioral traits (e.g., if it is read-only, rate limits, or data freshness). This is insufficient for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

  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 conveys the tool's purpose with no redundant information.

  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 simplicity (0 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but lacks additional context such as what exactly 'capabilities' entails or how the response is structured. It could be slightly more informative.

  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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage. As per guidelines, baseline for 0 parameters is 4. The description does not need to add parameter details since none exist.

  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: listing all configured media generation providers and their capabilities. It uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('providers') and is well-distinguished from sibling tools that perform actions (edit, generate, transcribe).

  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 when to use this tool (when needing to see providers and capabilities) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. While siblings are action-oriented, no direct exclusions or context are provided.

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

• transcribe_audioA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses providers and configuration state but omits details like supported formats, file size limits, or error behavior. Only partially 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, no redundancy. Every sentence provides essential information: purpose and provider availability.

  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?

  Missing key details such as output format (text), supported audio formats, and error cases. With no output schema, the description should be more 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?

  Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for all 4 parameters. The description adds value by listing providers and noting 'none configured', providing context beyond 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 transcribes audio to text using AI, lists specific providers (openai, elevenlabs), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like generate_audio.

  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 mentions 'Available: none configured' but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives or provide prerequisites. Usage context is implied but not thorough.

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