Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• axure_summary_promptC
  2.8/5.0
  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 mentions building a prompt but fails to describe key behaviors: what the tool does internally (e.g., crawling, OCR processing), potential side effects (e.g., network requests, data extraction), error handling, or output format. This is inadequate for a tool with 11 parameters and complex functionality.

  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 that efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary words. Every part of the sentence ('Build an AI-ready summary prompt from a public Axure link') contributes directly to understanding the tool's function, making it appropriately concise and well-structured.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness2/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the complexity (11 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, low schema coverage), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, parameter usage, output expectations, and error conditions. For a tool with such rich input options and no structured guidance elsewhere, the description fails to provide sufficient context for effective agent use.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters2/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is low at 18%, with only the 'url' parameter having a description. The tool description does not compensate by explaining the semantics of other parameters like 'focus', 'timeoutMs', or OCR-related options. It adds no meaningful context beyond what the minimal schema provides, leaving most parameters undocumented in both schema and description.

  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 ('Build') and the target resource ('AI-ready summary prompt from a public Axure link'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'axure_fetch' and 'axure_health' by focusing on prompt creation rather than fetching or health checks. However, it lacks specificity about what constitutes an 'AI-ready summary prompt' (e.g., format, content structure).

  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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'axure_fetch' or 'axure_health'. The description implies usage for generating prompts from Axure links but doesn't specify scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions (e.g., only for public links, not for private ones). This leaves the agent without clear decision-making criteria.

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

• axure_fetchC
  2.9/5.0
  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 mentions fetching text and image URLs but fails to describe critical traits like rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or what the output looks like (e.g., format, structure). For a tool with 11 parameters and no output schema, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

  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 directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resources, making it easy to grasp quickly. Every part of the sentence earns its place by specifying what is fetched and from where.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness2/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the complexity (11 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't address output format, error conditions, performance expectations, or how parameters interact (e.g., 'crawlPages' with 'maxPages'). For a data-fetching tool with many configuration options, more context is needed to use it effectively.

  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 description coverage is 45%, meaning many parameters lack descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no parameter-specific information beyond implying the 'url' parameter is for Axure links. It doesn't explain the purpose or interplay of parameters like 'timeoutMs', 'maxImages', or 'crawlPages', offering minimal compensation for the low 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 ('Fetch') and the resources ('visible text and image URLs') from a specific source ('public Axure share link'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'axure_health' or 'axure_summary_prompt', which might have overlapping or related functionality.

  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 its siblings ('axure_health' and 'axure_summary_prompt'), nor does it mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative scenarios. Usage is implied only by the tool's name and description, lacking explicit context for selection.

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

• axure_healthB
  3.1/5.0
  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 states the tool performs a 'health check,' implying a read-only diagnostic operation, but doesn't specify what the check entails (e.g., server status, connectivity, resource usage), expected response format, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

  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 directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness2/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the tool's complexity (simple health check) but lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the health check returns (e.g., status indicators, metrics) or behavioral details, leaving the agent with insufficient context to understand the tool's full functionality.

  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 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (though trivial). The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, so it meets the baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools, as there's no additional burden beyond the empty schema.

  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's purpose as a 'health check for Axure MCP server runtime,' which is a specific verb ('health check') applied to a specific resource ('Axure MCP server runtime'). It doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like 'axure_fetch' or 'axure_summary_prompt,' but the purpose is unambiguous for a health monitoring function.

  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 doesn't mention prerequisites, frequency, or context (e.g., use for diagnostics, monitoring, or troubleshooting), and there's no comparison to sibling tools. This leaves the agent without explicit usage instructions.

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