Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• execute_scriptA
  4.9/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  Annotations provide destructiveHint=true, and the description complements this with extensive behavioral details: timeout defaults, output formatting flags (-s h, -s s, etc.), placeholder substitution behavior, debug options (include_executed_script_in_output, include_substitution_logs), and execution time reporting. This goes well beyond the annotation.

  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 long due to tool complexity but is well-structured with numbered sections, code examples, and bullet lists. Every section provides actionable information—no filler. The front-loading of purpose and clear formatting make it easy to navigate.

  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?

  The description thoroughly covers script input methods, options, and debugging aids. However, with no output schema, it does not explicitly describe the overall return value structure, only mentioning that certain flags add info to 'the response.' This is a minor gap given the tool's complexity.

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

  Parameters5/5

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

  Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds substantial value: concrete examples for each script source, explanation of --MCP_INPUT placeholder mechanics, positional vs named arguments, default behavior for output_format_mode per language, and clear descriptions of all boolean options. This significantly exceeds schema-only information.

  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 opens with a specific verb+resource statement: 'Automate macOS tasks using AppleScript or JXA (JavaScript for Automation) to control applications like Terminal, Chrome, Safari, Finder, etc.' This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tool get_scripting_tips, which is for finding scripts, not executing them.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines5/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description explicitly names the alternative tool: 'Use get_scripting_tips to find IDs and inputs.' It also provides clear when-to-use guidance for each script source (kb_script_id recommended, script_content for simple/dynamic, script_path for path-based), and explains when to specify language and other options.

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

• get_scripting_tipsA
  5/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  The description goes beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by disclosing output formats (Markdown), fuzzy search behavior, category tree structure, and the refresh_database behavior (forces reload, auto-refresh). It clearly explains how list_categories overrides other parameters, which is a subtle behavioral trait. No contradiction with annotations.

  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 long but meticulously structured with headings, bullet points, and examples. The core purpose is front-loaded, and every section earns its place by explaining use cases, parameter behavior, and best practices. No redundant filler.

  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 no output schema, the description fully covers return formats ('list of matching tips in Markdown format', 'Category tree in Markdown format'). It also covers all 5 parameters, their interplay, and the relationship with the sibling tool, making it complete for effective agent use.

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

  Parameters5/5

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

  Although the schema already covers all parameters (100% coverage), the description enriches each parameter with practical meaning: search_term examples, limit's interaction with category/list_categories, category path examples, and refresh_database's typical usage. It explains nuances like 'Does not apply if list_categories is true', which is not in 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 opens with a clear, specific purpose: 'Discover how to automate any app on your Mac' via a knowledge base of AppleScript/JXA tips. It further distinguishes itself from the sibling tool execute_script by positioning itself as the 'FIRST CHOICE' for discovery, making the tool's role unmistakable.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines5/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description explicitly states when to use this tool versus alternatives: 'should be the FIRST CHOICE when aiming to automate macOS tasks... before attempting to write scripts from scratch.' It also points to the sibling tool ('Use its ID with execute_script tool'), and provides a 'Best Practices' section with concrete usage scenarios.

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