Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get_glucose_historyA
  3.6/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true. The description adds default behavior (24 hours) and return format, but no additional behavioral traits beyond the schema and annotations. Adequate.

  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?

  Four sentences, each serving a purpose: purpose, return format, use cases, default. No wasted words, front-loaded with key information. Excellent.

  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 a single optional parameter, readOnlyHint, and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects (purpose, return, default, use cases). Missing mention of pagination or limits, but schema covers hours constraints. Good.

  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% coverage with detailed parameter description. The description only mentions 'default retrieves 24 hours', which adds minimal value beyond the schema. Baseline 3.

  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 it retrieves historical glucose readings and returns timestamped values, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_current_glucose. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives, so it's clear but not top tier.

  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 provides use cases (reviewing past levels, identifying patterns, overnight values), implying when to use it, but lacks explicit exclusions or alternatives. Adequate but not explicit.

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

• configure_rangesA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  The description indicates mutation (customize) but adds limited behavioral context beyond the destructiveHint annotation; it could disclose impacts on previous settings or persistence.

  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 concise (two sentences) and front-loads the primary action, with no superfluous information.

  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 simple parameters and existing annotations, the description adequately explains the tool's purpose and context, though it could clarify the effect on calculations.

  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 provides full parameter descriptions; the description adds context about standard ranges and healthcare provider recommendations but no new parameter 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?

  The description clearly states the tool customizes the target glucose range for time-in-range calculations, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'configure_credentials'.

  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 (to set a custom range) but does not explicitly state exclusions or alternatives, relying on the sibling context for differentiation.

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

• get_glucose_statsA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description doesn't need to emphasize safety. It adds that the tool computes statistical metrics, which is useful but not a deep behavioral disclosure. 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?

  Two sentences precisely conveying purpose and usage. No wasted words or redundancy. Information is 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?

  Tool has one optional parameter, no output schema. Description explains what metrics are computed (avg glucose, GMI, time-in-range, variability), which compensates for missing output schema. Adequately complete for a statistical aggregation 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?

  There is one parameter (days) with 100% schema description coverage. The tool description does not repeat parameter details, but the schema already explains days, default, and data availability. Baseline score applies as schema does the work.

  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 clearly states it calculates comprehensive glucose statistics (average glucose, GMI, time-in-range, variability). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_current_glucose (single reading), get_glucose_history (raw data), and get_glucose_trends (trends).

  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?

  Description says 'Essential for diabetes management insights and identifying areas for improvement,' which provides clear context for when to use this tool. No explicit when-not or alternatives, but the purpose is clear enough.

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

• clear_sessionA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  The description aligns with the destructiveHint annotation by mentioning clearing the session and tokens, but does not go beyond annotations to disclose additional behavioral traits (e.g., irreversibility).

  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 concise sentences front-load the action and usage, with no wasted 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?

  Given no output schema and low complexity, the description sufficiently covers purpose and usage without leaving critical 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?

  No parameters exist, with 100% schema coverage. The description adds no parameter details but none are needed, earning a baseline of 4 for zero parameters.

  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 specifies the verb 'clear' and resource 'authentication session and stored tokens', distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_session_status or configure_credentials.

  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?

  States when to use the tool ('force a re-authentication'), providing clear context, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives.

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

• configure_credentialsA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Discloses security details (AES-256-GCM encryption, OS keychain) beyond destructiveHint annotation. Does not contradict annotations. Lacks info on error behavior or validation, but still informative.

  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 concise sentences with no redundant information. Every sentence adds value: purpose, prerequisite, security detail.

  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?

  Adequately covers the tool's role, prerequisite, and security. No output schema needed. Could mention validation or error handling, but not required for basic understanding.

  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 covers all parameter descriptions (100% coverage). Description adds no additional semantics beyond the overall purpose. Baseline score of 3 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?

  Clearly states 'Set up or update your LibreLinkUp account credentials for data access' and distinguishes from sibling tools by noting it is a prerequisite for glucose reading tools.

  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?

  Explicitly says 'Required before using any glucose reading tools', providing clear when-to-use context. Does not specify when not to use, but the context implies one-time setup or credential update.

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

• get_current_glucoseA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true. Description adds value by detailing the return data (value in mg/dL, trend direction, in-range status). No contradictions, good disclosure beyond 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?

  Two sentences, no unnecessary words. Information is front-loaded and each sentence adds value. Perfectly concise.

  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 zero parameters, no output schema, and simple read nature, the description covers all necessary context: what it returns and when to use it. No 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?

  No parameters in input schema, schema description coverage is 100% (empty). Description correctly omits parameter info. Baseline score of 4 applies per guidelines.

  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 clearly states verb 'Get', resource 'most recent glucose reading', and source 'FreeStyle Libre sensor'. It distinguishes from siblings like get_glucose_history (historical data) and get_glucose_stats (statistics).

  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?

  Explicitly states 'Use this for real-time glucose monitoring', providing clear usage context. Does not include explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, but the sibling list and context make it obvious.

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