Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• healthA
  3.7/5.0
  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 merely restates the tool's name ('health' -> 'check if healthy') without revealing side effects, return format, or what 'healthy' means. It implies read-only but does not explicitly state it, and gives no information about the response structure.

  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, succinct sentence that exactly captures the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded and contains no filler words.

  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 extremely simple, but it has no output schema and no annotations, so the description must compensate. It tells the agent the action but not what to expect in the response (e.g., status codes, JSON structure, or error behavior). For a health check, this is a moderate gap that keeps the score at a minimally viable 3.

  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 no parameter description is necessary. The baseline of 4 applies because there are no parameters to document and the description adds no semantic confusion.

  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 purpose: 'Check if the MCP server is healthy.' The verb 'check' and the resource 'MCP server' make the action and scope explicit, and it is easily distinguishable from the sibling tools 'chat' and 'list_marketplace_tools'.

  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 usage is implied by the description: one would call this tool to verify server health. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use it versus any alternative, no exclusions, and no context about prerequisites or typical invocation scenarios.

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

• list_marketplace_toolsA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It implies a read-only operation via 'List' and specifies the return type, but it does not mention permissions, potential side effects, or limitations beyond the 'limit' parameter. The return description adds some transparency, but lacks depth.

  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 and well-structured: a one-line purpose statement followed by explicitly labeled Args and Returns. Every sentence contributes meaning, and the purpose is front-loaded for quick comprehension.

  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 simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description provides adequate context: it explains the return format (dict with names/descriptions) and the meaning of the limit. No additional complexity requires further explanation, though it could mention any default behavior or pagination if applicable.

  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?

  The description adds clear semantic meaning to the 'limit' parameter ('Maximum number of tools to return'), which is absent from the input schema. This fully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage, making the parameter's intent unmistakable.

  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 purpose with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('available tools in the marketplace'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'chat' and 'health' which serve completely different functions.

  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, or any prerequisites or conditions. The description simply states what the tool does without contextual cues about appropriate usage scenarios.

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

• chatA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  There are no annotations, so the description carries full burden. It does disclose the agent's capabilities (including write operations and web scraping), which hints at side effects, and it specifies the return dict. However, it does not explicitly warn that chat interactions can trigger file modifications or external scrapes, nor does it mention authentication, rate limits, or cancellation behavior. This partial disclosure leaves significant gaps.

  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 well-structured with a purpose sentence, a bulleted capability list, an Args block, and a Returns line. All sections serve to inform the agent. The capability list is somewhat extensive but relevant given the tool's broad scope; it could be trimmed slightly to focus only on the most consequential behaviors.

  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 tool's complexity (a chat agent with access to all marketplace tools) and the absence of an output schema, the description provides a solid overview: what it does, what capabilities the agent has, parameter semantics, and return shape. It lacks operational details like typical response latency, error patterns, or side-effect warnings, but it is sufficient for basic selection and invocation.

  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 description coverage is 0%, but the description compensates fully with an Args section explaining each parameter: message ('Your question or command'), conversation_id ('Optional conversation ID for multi-turn chat'), model ('LLM model to use'), and max_iterations ('Maximum agent iterations'). This adds meaning beyond the schema's bare titles and defaults.

  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 'Chat with the Universal Adapter agent' with a specific verb and resource, and follows with a detailed list of the agent's capabilities (file ops, web scraping, tool generation, tool search). This differentiates it from sibling tools like list_marketplace_tools and health, which serve distinct purposes.

  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 by explaining the agent's broad access to marketplace tools, suggesting it's the general-purpose interface for leveraging those tools. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose chat over directly invoking tools, nor does it provide exclusions or alternatives. The context of being 'chat with the agent' is clear, but no explicit guidance on alternatives is given.

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