Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• list_sourcesC
  2.4/5.0
  Behavior1/5

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

  No annotations are provided, and the description only states what is returned. It discloses nothing about behavior such as read-only nature, authentication needs, pagination, or 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.

  Conciseness2/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single sentence but is not a proper sentence with a main verb; it is a noun phrase. It is too brief and lacks structure, failing to clearly convey the operation.

  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 simplicity of the tool (no parameters, no output schema), the description should at least include the verb 'list.' It partially tells what the tool returns but is incomplete as a functional description.

  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 no parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description adds no parameter information, which is acceptable.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose3/5

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

  The description is a noun phrase, 'The pilot books ingested into the vault,' which omits the action verb. The tool name implies 'list,' but the description does not explicitly state that the tool lists or retrieves these books. It is somewhat clear but lacks a verb.

  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. Sibling tools are about anchorages, but no comparison or context is given.

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

• find_anchorages_nearC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations, description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions exposure summary but omits coordinate format, rate limits, or any output details. Minimal behavioral disclosure.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness3/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  Single sentence is concise but too brief. It front-loads the action but lacks necessary details, making it under-specified rather than optimally concise.

  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 no output schema, no annotations, and low parameter coverage, the description is incomplete. It fails to specify coordinate system, exposure summary details, or any constraints beyond radius.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters2/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is only 33% (radius_nm has description). Description adds no extra meaning for lat/lon parameters, leaving their format and units unspecified.

  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 finds anchorages within a radius of a position, orders them nearest first, and provides an exposure summary. It distinguishes from siblings: get_anchorage (specific), list_sources (sources), rank_anchorages (ranking).

  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 on when to use this tool versus siblings. Does not mention when a call is appropriate or when to use alternatives like get_anchorage or rank_anchorages.

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

• get_anchorageB
  3.3/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, and the description only mentions returning data without disclosing side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or whether the tool is read-only. The description lacks behavioral details beyond the output content.

  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 a single concise sentence. It effectively communicates the core functionality without extraneous words, though it could be structured to include parameter constraints.

  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 (1 required param, no output schema), the description covers the basic purpose. However, it does not describe the return structure or what constitutes 'full record,' which would be helpful for an agent. An output schema would mitigate this, but none is provided.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters2/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The single parameter 'name' has no schema description (0% coverage), and the description only implies it is the anchorage name. No format, case sensitivity, or validation details are provided, leaving the agent to guess constraints.

  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 returns 'full record and verbatim pilot-book prose for one named anchorage,' specifying the verb (get) and resource (anchorage by name). It effectively distinguishes from siblings like find_anchorages_near (search) and rank_anchorages (ranking).

  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?

  No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The purpose is clear but does not mention alternatives or context like using find_anchorages_near for searching. The agent must infer usage from sibling names.

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

• rank_anchoragesA
  3.6/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations provided; description only states it ranks by comfort against forecast. Lacks details on side effects, authentication, or assumptions (e.g., units, missing data). Insufficient disclosure 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.

  Conciseness4/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose. Second sentence provides necessary parameter detail. Minimal waste, though could be slightly more concise.

  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?

  Provides essential information for a ranking tool with no output schema and no annotations. Explains forecast format but does not mention output structure (ranking order, score format) or error conditions. Adequate but has gaps.

  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 description coverage is 0%; description adds meaning by explaining that 'names' are anchorage names and 'forecast' is a list of steps with specified fields (wind_from_deg, wind_kn, swell_from_deg, swell_m). Adds significant value beyond raw 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?

  Description states verb 'rank' and resource 'anchorages' with a clear method (against a forecast). Distinguishes from siblings: find_anchorages_near (nearby, not rank), get_anchorage (single), list_sources (list).

  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?

  Tells user to fetch forecast from weather-mcp and pass specific fields, implying a prerequisite. Does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives or mention exclusions.

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