Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• xkcd_searchB
  3.4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It mentions using 'explainxkcd semantic indexing', adding some transparency, but does not disclose error handling, empty results, or output format. Adequate but not thorough.

  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 fluff. Information is front-loaded and every word is useful. Highly concise.

  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 simple structure (1 param, no output schema), the description covers the core functionality. It lacks details on return values (implied comic numbers) and limits, but is mostly complete for a search 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 coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It implies the 'query' parameter is a topic and gives two examples, but does not specify allowed formats or lengths. Adds meaning but does not fully describe the parameter.

  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 searches for xkcd comics by topic, with concrete examples ('aliens', 'global warming'). It does not differentiate from sibling tools like xkcd_latest or xkcd_random, but its purpose is 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?

  No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., xkcd_get for a specific comic, xkcd_random for a random comic). The description only explains what it does, not when it's appropriate.

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

• xkcd_getA
  3.5/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It accurately indicates a read operation (fetch), and for a simple comic retrieval, the behavior is transparent. However, no details on error handling or response format are given.

  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 one sentence with no unnecessary words, making it concise. It could include more detail, but for a simple tool, this is acceptable.

  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 has low complexity (1 param, no output schema). The description covers the basic purpose but omits details like what is returned (e.g., comic image, metadata) or error handling. It is minimally complete.

  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 0%, so the description must compensate. The parameter 'comic_number' is self-explanatory, but the description does not add any additional semantics (e.g., valid range, required format).

  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 ('Fetch') and the resource ('specific xkcd comic'), and uniquely identifies it by number, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like xkcd_latest or xkcd_random.

  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 (e.g., xkcd_search, xkcd_random), nor any conditions or prerequisites. It only states what it does.

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

• xkcd_latestA
  3.5/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations, the description only says 'Fetch the latest comic', which lacks details on side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or return format. 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.

  Conciseness5/5

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

  Single sentence, no wasted words, and directly conveys the tool's purpose. Perfectly concise for its simplicity.

  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 no output schema and no annotations, the description provides basic purpose but omits what the tool returns (e.g., comic data, image URL). Slightly incomplete for an agent to fully anticipate behavior.

  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?

  No parameters exist, and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter info, but baseline for zero parameters is 4. It effectively states the tool's action without redundant details.

  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 tool fetches the latest comic from xkcd.com. The verb 'Fetch' and resource 'latest comic' are specific, and it is distinguished from siblings like xkcd_get (specific comic) and xkcd_random.

  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 vs. alternatives like xkcd_random or xkcd_get. The description does not mention when not to use or provide any contextual hints for selection.

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

• xkcd_helpA
  4.1/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, and the description is minimal. However, the tool has no parameters and appears purely informative, so the description adequately covers 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 with no superfluous words, perfectly sized for its purpose.

  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?

  Given the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description is complete and sufficient for an agent to understand its purpose.

  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?

  There are zero parameters, so the description does not need to add meaning beyond the empty schema. Baseline 4 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 'Get help and usage information for xkcd-mcp tools and configuration' uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('help and usage information'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools that fetch comics.

  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 obtaining help but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives or provide any exclusions. No guidance on context is given.

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

• show_comic_prefab_cardA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: it renders an interactive UI, fetches random if no number given. Adequate disclosure for a read-only display 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?

  Three concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose, followed by key behavior and usage guidance. No unnecessary 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?

  For a simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers core functionality, usage context, and default behavior. Could mention UI specifics but not essential.

  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 0%, but description adds meaning by explaining that omitting the comic_number fetches a random comic. Does not elaborate on the parameter's format or 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 it shows a 'rich prefab card' for an xkcd comic, and distinguishes from sibling tools by emphasizing its interactive UI and preference over text output.

  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 guidance to prefer this tool over text output when displaying data from other xkcd-mcp tools, and explains the random fetch behavior when no number is given. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use but context suffices.

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

• xkcd_randomA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It accurately describes a read-only operation (fetching a random comic) with no destructive behavior. The phrase 'from the entire xkcd collection' clarifies scope. No contradictions.

  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?

  A single, concise sentence that fully captures the tool's function without any extraneous words. Perfectly front-loaded.

  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 no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is adequate. However, it could be slightly improved by hinting at the return type (e.g., 'Fetch a random comic object from the entire xkcd collection').

  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 zero parameters and 100% schema coverage (empty schema). No parameter semantics are needed, and the description does not add param information, which 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 verb 'Fetch' and the resource 'a random comic from the entire xkcd collection', making its purpose unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like xkcd_latest and xkcd_get.

  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 implies the tool is used when a random comic is desired, and the tool name reinforces this. No explicit when-not or alternatives are given, but the sibling names provide implicit guidance.

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