Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• list_servicesB
  3.3/5.0
  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 discloses the 'prepare for caching' side effect but does not explain what this entails, whether it mutates state, or what the response contains.

  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 front-loads the core action. Every word contributes meaning, with no filler or redundancy.

  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 is simple with one well-documented parameter, but the absence of an output schema and annotations leaves gaps about return values and the caching behavior. The description is adequate for basic understanding but vague on important details.

  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 already fully documents the only parameter (swaggerUrl) with a clear description, and the tool description adds no additional parameter semantics. The baseline of 3 applies due to 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 ('List all available API services') and the source ('Swagger/OpenAPI specification'), and adds a distinct caching preparation aspect. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like get_all_service_information.

  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 a use case (preparing for caching) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no stated exclusions or comparisons with sibling tools.

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

• get_service_informationA
  3.5/5.0
  Behavior3/5

  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 implies a read-only operation via the verb 'Get' and indicates the type of content returned, but does not state authoritative details such as permissions required, potential side effects (though likely none), or return format specifics. This is 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?

  The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It efficiently communicates the core purpose and scope without repetition.

  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 description covers the tool's main output content but lacks usage guidance, prerequisites (e.g., needing a swaggerUrl from another source), and explicit return structure details. Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description is only minimally complete for an agent to confidently invoke the 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?

  Both parameters are fully described in the input schema (100% schema description coverage), so the description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. The mention of 'including parameters' is redundant given the schema's thorough descriptions.

  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 a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('comprehensive information about a specific API service'), listing the exact content (parameters, request/response schemas, example usage). This distinguishes it from siblings like list_services (lists all services) and get_cache_information (focuses on cache details).

  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 does not mention that this is for a single service while list_services is for all, or when get_all_service_information might be preferred. No exclusions or prerequisites are noted.

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

• get_all_service_informationA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description conveys the read-only intent through 'Get' and lists the kind of data returned (parameters, schemas, examples). However, it does not disclose whether fetching the spec may have side effects, network requirements, or error behaviors.

  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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose and includes relevant output content details without any fluff.

  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 one-parameter input and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context by stating what information is returned. It also differentiates from sibling tools, though it could mention the read-only nature or behavior when the URL is invalid.

  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 single parameter swaggerUrl is fully described in the schema (100% coverage). The description adds no extra detail about parameter format or constraints, aligning with the baseline for 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?

  Description clearly specifies the verb 'Get' and the resource: detailed information about all API services from a Swagger/OpenAPI spec. The inclusion of 'all' distinguishes it from the sibling tool get_service_information, and the detail level separates it from list_services.

  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 use for retrieving comprehensive data on every service in a spec, but it does not explicitly state when to use this over get_service_information or list_services. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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

• get_cache_informationA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It gives some behavioral context by listing the types of information returned, but it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, or mention any side effects, permissions, or response format. The verb 'get' implies safety, but this is not explicitly disclosed.

  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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the main purpose ('Get comprehensive information about the cache status') and concisely lists the key areas of information. There is no unnecessary verbosity.

  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 tool has no output schema, so the description must convey what the tool returns. It mentions three specific categories (cached specifications, expiration times, performance metrics), which gives a reasonable understanding. However, it does not specify the return format or whether all cache entries are included, leaving some ambiguity. Overall, it is fairly complete for a zero-parameter getter.

  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, so the description is not required to provide parameter semantics. The baseline for 0 params is 4; the schema coverage is 100% trivially, and the description does not need to compensate for missing parameter documentation.

  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's function: 'Get comprehensive information about the cache status' with explicit details on what it includes (cached specifications, expiration times, performance metrics). It is distinct from sibling tools (list_services, get_service_information, get_all_service_information) which all concern services, not cache.

  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 the tool is for retrieving cache-related information, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. Sibling tools are service-focused, so the distinction is implicit, but no direct guidance or exclusions are provided.

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