Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• ifc_get_entityA
  3.6/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, consistent with the description's 'Get' verb. The description adds detail on returned content (attributes, inheritance, WHERE rules, description) without contradicting annotations. No additional side effects or auth needs are mentioned, which is acceptable given the read-only nature.

  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 well-structured: a brief overview, clear bullet-style Args, Returns summary, and examples. Each sentence adds necessary information. No redundancy or fluff; ideal for an MCP tool.

  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 rich input schema and annotations, the description sufficiently explains the tool's purpose and behavior. It lacks an explicit output schema but summarizes return content. For a read-only query tool, this is adequate and complete.

  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?

  Input schema covers all 5 parameters with block descriptions (100% coverage). The description repeats these in Args with minor additions (e.g., examples of entity names). This adds marginal value beyond the schema, meeting the baseline for 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 tool retrieves the complete definition of an IFC4.3 entity, listing included elements. It distinguishes implicitly from siblings like ifc_get_inheritance (which focuses on inheritance only) but does not explicitly differentiate. The purpose is clear and specific.

  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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. The description provides examples but does not explain scenarios for choosing this over ifc_get_inheritance, ifc_get_propertyset, or ifc_search_entity. The agent must infer usage from the purpose alone.

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

• ifc_get_propertysetA
  4.1/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by explaining the dual-mode behavior, pagination, and return structure, though it could detail more about edge cases.

  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-organized with clear sections (summary, args, returns, examples) and front-loaded with the purpose. It is slightly verbose by duplicating schema info, but remains readable and efficient.

  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 absence of an output schema, the description adequately explains return values and structure. It covers all parameters, modes, and pagination, making it suitable for effective tool use.

  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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description repeats schema definitions and adds examples, which clarify usage but do not introduce new semantic meaning beyond 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 clearly states the tool retrieves or searches IFC PropertySet definitions, specifying the two modes and providing examples. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ifc_get_entity and ifc_search_entity by focusing on PropertySets.

  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 explains when to use 'get' vs 'search' with explicit examples, and the schema enforces mode choices. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings, but the tool's purpose is clear enough for appropriate selection.

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

• ifc_get_inheritanceA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description complements this by explaining the tool's behavior (showing hierarchies, depth limits) without contradicting annotations.

  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 clear sections (main purpose, Args, Returns, Examples). Every sentence serves a purpose, though it is slightly lengthy. The use of examples aids understanding without adding unnecessary fluff.

  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?

  Given the tool's complexity (4 parameters, no output schema), the description provides decent coverage. However, the return format is vaguely described ('Inheritance hierarchy showing ancestors and/or descendants') and the examples only hint at the output structure. More explicit details about the output (e.g., format of markdown vs JSON) would improve completeness.

  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?

  Input schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining parameter semantics through examples and clarifying default values and allowed ranges (e.g., depth 1-10, direction options). This goes beyond the schema's 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 that the tool retrieves the inheritance hierarchy (ancestors and/or descendants) of an IFC entity. It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('IFC Inheritance Tree'), and the examples distinguish it from sibling tools like ifc_get_entity, which retrieves a single entity.

  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 provides clear context on when to use different parameters (direction, depth) and includes examples that illustrate typical use cases. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives among siblings, which would be helpful for an AI agent.

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

• ifc_search_entityA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral context such as partial name matching, description text search, and the return fields (name, layer, schema, short definition). It does not contradict 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 concise and well-structured: a clear opening sentence, followed by a list of return fields, parameter descriptions, examples, and default values. Every sentence provides useful information without redundancy.

  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 (4 parameters, no output schema), the description adequately explains the return format and pagination. It covers all necessary aspects for an agent to use the tool correctly, though adding explicit mention of the response format behavior would strengthen completeness.

  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?

  Input schema has 100% coverage, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by providing example values for the query parameter (e.g., 'Wall', 'beam', 'spatial') and explaining pagination with limit and offset, which enhances understanding beyond the schema 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 it searches IFC4.3 entities by name or description keyword, using a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('IFC Entities'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ifc_get_entity (which likely retrieves a single entity) by focusing on search with partial matching and text search.

  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 provides clear context on when to use the tool (searching entities by keyword) and gives examples. It does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives among siblings, but the use case is well-defined.

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