Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• add_figma_fileC
  2.6/5.0
  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. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only or mutative operation, if it requires authentication, what happens on failure, or how the file is added to context. The description is too brief to provide meaningful behavioral insight.

  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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action, though it could be more structured by elaborating on 'context'. It earns its place but leaves room for improvement in clarity.

  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 annotations, no output schema, and a simple input schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'Add to your context' entails, the return value, or error handling. For a tool with potential complexity in file handling, this lacks necessary context for 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?

  Schema description coverage is 100%, with the 'url' parameter fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as URL format examples or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

  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 states the action ('Add') and resource ('a Figma file'), but it's vague about what 'to your context' means. It doesn't specify whether this imports, links, or loads the file, and it doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'view_node' or 'post_comment'. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity.

  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, such as needing a valid Figma URL, or when not to use it, like if the file is already in context. Without explicit or implied usage context, the agent must infer based on tool name alone.

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

• post_commentC
  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 action ('Post a comment') which implies a write operation, but fails to mention critical behavioral aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, whether the comment is public or private, or how errors are handled. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation 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?

  The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and perfectly concise, with every word earning its place in communicating the core functionality.

  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 mutation tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't cover behavioral traits, error handling, return values, or usage context. While the schema covers parameters well, the overall context for safe and effective tool invocation is incomplete.

  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 input schema already documents all 5 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining the relationship between node_id and x/y coordinates or formatting expectations for the message. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

  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 ('Post a comment') and the target ('on a node in a Figma file'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'reply_to_comment' or 'read_comments', which would require mentioning that this is for creating new top-level comments rather than replying or reading existing ones.

  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 'reply_to_comment' or 'read_comments'. It also doesn't mention prerequisites, such as needing file access or node existence, leaving the agent to infer usage context without explicit direction.

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

• read_commentsC
  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. It states the tool 'Get[s] all comments' but lacks details on permissions required, rate limits, pagination, error handling, or what 'all' entails (e.g., if it includes nested replies). This is inadequate for a read operation 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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and wastes no space, 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 tool has no annotations, no output schema, and a simple input schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like authentication needs, response format, or error cases, which are critical for a read operation. The conciseness comes at the cost of necessary context.

  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 description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides (100% coverage). It mentions 'a Figma file' which aligns with the 'file_key' parameter but doesn't explain format, sourcing, or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles documentation.

  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 ('Get all comments') and target resource ('on a Figma file'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from potential sibling tools like 'view_node' or 'post_comment' that might also interact with Figma file comments, missing explicit 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?

  The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., file access), exclusions, or compare it to siblings like 'post_comment' or 'reply_to_comment', leaving the agent to infer usage from context alone.

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

• reply_to_commentC
  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 action ('Reply to') but doesn't cover critical traits like required permissions, whether this is a mutation (implied but not explicit), rate limits, error conditions, or response format. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely modifies data.

  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 any wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, 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 (a mutation operation with no annotations and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks behavioral context (e.g., permissions, effects), usage guidelines, and any information about return values or errors, which are essential 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?

  Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all three parameters (file_key, comment_id, message). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as format details or usage examples, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.

  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 ('Reply to') and target ('an existing comment in a Figma file'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'post_comment' (which might create new comments) or 'read_comments' (which reads them), 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?

  The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing comment), exclusions, or compare to siblings like 'post_comment' for new comments or 'read_comments' for viewing, leaving usage context implied at best.

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

• view_nodeC
  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 retrieves a thumbnail, implying a read-only operation, but does not mention potential side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or what happens if the node or file does not exist. 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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words or fluff. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse and understand 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 (a read operation with two required parameters) and the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what the thumbnail output looks like (e.g., image format, size), error conditions, or how it interacts with the Figma API, leaving the agent with incomplete context for 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, with clear documentation for both parameters ('file_key' and 'node_id'), including the format for node_id. The description adds no additional parameter details beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage.

  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 ('Get a thumbnail') and resource ('for a specific node in a Figma file'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'add_figma_file' or 'read_comments', which serve different purposes, so it falls short of 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 or in what context it is appropriate. It lacks any mention of prerequisites, such as needing an existing Figma file or node, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the purpose alone.

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