Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get_component_examplesA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the return format (title + HTML snippet) but does not mention read-only nature, error conditions, or potential side effects. Adequate but not rich.

  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 terse sentences: first states functionality, second states purpose. Every word earns its place. Front-loaded with key 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?

  For a single-parameter lookup tool without output schema, the description adequately explains what is returned and how to find valid tags. Lacks details on error handling or example count but sufficient for typical use.

  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 coverage is 100% with parameter description including examples. The tool description adds value by demonstrating usage with '如 see-button' and stating the return structure, but baseline is 3 due to high schema coverage.

  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 specifies the verb '返回' (returns) and the resource '可用代码示例（标题 + HTML 模板片段）' for a given component tag. It distinguishes from siblings 'get_component_api' and 'list_components' by focusing on code examples.

  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 clear context by linking to 'list_components' for valid tags and giving example 'see-button'. Does not explicitly state when not to use or alternatives, but the sibling names imply differentiation.

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

• list_componentsA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  无注解，但描述充分揭示了行为：列出组件、返回内容、过滤方式，无副作用需要说明。

  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?

  两句完成，信息密度高，无冗余。

  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?

  对于单参数列表工具，描述覆盖了功能、返回和过滤，可再补充只读性质，但已足够。

  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?

  参数category的描述在schema中已详细，描述只重复了过滤功能，未增加新含义。

  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?

  明确说明列出所有组件并可按类别过滤，返回字段具体，与兄弟工具（获取API/示例）区分清晰。

  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?

  声明用于总览或查找组件，但未说明何时不应使用或给出替代工具指引。

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

• get_component_apiA
  4.7/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  With no annotations, the description fully discloses the output format: props with type/required/default/description, events with kebab-case binding names (e.g., @on-click), and slots. It accurately describes the tool's read-only nature and what information is returned.

  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. The first sentence lists what is returned, the second states the use case. Every sentence is necessary and well-structured.

  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 simple input (one required string) and no output schema, the description fully explains both input and output. It covers all aspects needed for an agent to use the tool correctly.

  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 coverage is 100% (one parameter with description). The description adds examples (see-button, see-input) and clarifies that the tag comes from 'list_components'. This provides helpful context beyond the schema's basic description.

  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 that the tool returns a component's complete API (props, events, slots) given a tag. It distinguishes from siblings: 'list_components' lists tags, and 'get_component_examples' likely provides examples, so the agent knows exactly what this tool does.

  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 usage: it's for generating accurate code when you need a component's API. It references 'list_components' for valid tags. While it doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives, the sibling names make it clear that 'get_component_examples' is for examples, not API details. A small gap in explicit when-not guidance.

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