Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get_promptA
  4.1/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Annotations already mark this as read-only (readOnlyHint: true) and open-world (openWorldHint: true). The description adds that notes are included and that it is a retrieve operation, but does not disclose error handling or other behavioral details. Given the simple read nature, this is acceptable but adds only limited extra context.

  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 two concise sentences: the first clearly states the action and content, the second gives usage direction. It is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

  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?

  For a simple single-parameter read tool with strong annotations and sibling context, this description covers the purpose, usage sequence (after list_prompts), and what is returned (full text plus notes). No output schema exists, but the return value is adequately described.

  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 schema provides 100% coverage for the only parameter, id, with description 'The prompt id, as returned by list_prompts.' The tool description adds little beyond reinforcing 'by its id', so it does not significantly enhance parameter understanding 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 the full text of one saved prompt by its id, including notes. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying it is for a single prompt and recommends calling it after list_prompts.

  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?

  It explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool: 'Call this after list_prompts, once you know which prompt you need.' This provides clear sequencing and context, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions.

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

• list_categoriesA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds that the tool returns counts of prompts per category, which is useful context about the output. However, it does not describe any edge cases, pagination, or further behavioral details, which would be nice given there is no output schema.

  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 sentence that front-loads the core function and appends a practical use case. Every word earns its place; no fluff or repetition.

  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 no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately conveys what it returns (categories with prompt counts) and why it's useful. It doesn't specify the exact data structure, but for a category listing that is acceptable. The sibling context is also implicitly covered through the use-case note.

  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, and the schema is empty with 100% coverage. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 applies for 0 params, and the description doesn't need to add parameter details. Nothing is missing here.

  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 verb ('List') and resource ('the user's prompt categories'), plus the key detail that it includes counts of prompts per category. This distinguishes it from sibling tools list_prompts and get_prompt, which deal with prompts directly.

  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 explicitly mentions a use case: narrowing list_prompts on a large library. This gives clear context for when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly state when not to use it or directly name alternatives. Still, the tie to list_prompts implies the distinction.

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

• list_promptsA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is known. The description adds important behavioral context: it returns titles only, not the full text, and includes category information. This goes beyond the annotations and helps set expectations.

  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?

  Three sentences, each earning its place: purpose, usage, and a limitation with an alternative. No redundant phrasing or filler, making it efficient and easy to parse.

  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?

  For a simple list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is complete. It covers what is returned, when to use it, and what to use for full text. The sibling tool context is also clear, so an agent can select this tool confidently.

  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 schema already fully describes the single 'category' parameter with 100% coverage, so the description need not repeat it. The description adds marginal value by mentioning 'with their category' in the output, but the parameter semantics are adequately handled by 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 lists titles of saved prompts with their category, using a specific verb ('List') and resource. It distinguishes itself from get_prompt (which returns full text) and implicitly from list_categories (which likely lists categories), making the purpose unambiguous.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines5/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  Explicit when-to-use guidance is provided: when the user refers to their prompts, asks about their library, or wants to reuse/adapt something. It also gives an alternative instruction ('call get_prompt for the text'), clarifying when not to rely on this tool.

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