Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• call_databricks_toolA
  3.5/5.0
  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 calling a remote tool but fails to disclose critical traits such as authentication requirements, potential side effects (e.g., whether it's read-only or destructive), error handling, or rate limits. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's 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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with a clear main sentence followed by concise bullet points for args. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, 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.

  Completeness3/5

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

  Given the complexity of calling remote tools, 2 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema present, the description is somewhat complete but has gaps. It covers the basic purpose and usage but lacks details on authentication, error cases, or behavioral traits, which are crucial for such a tool. The output schema helps, but the description could do more to compensate for missing annotations.

  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 description adds some meaning beyond the input schema by explaining that tool_name should correspond to tools listed by list_databricks_tools and that arguments are passed to the tool. However, with 0% schema description coverage and 2 parameters (one required), it doesn't fully compensate for the lack of schema details, such as the structure or constraints of arguments.

  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 verb 'call' and the resource 'tool on the remote Databricks MCP server', making the purpose specific and understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools by mentioning list_databricks_tools as a prerequisite for discovering available tools, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'authenticate'.

  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 for usage by specifying that list_databricks_tools should be used to see available tools, which implicitly guides when to use this tool. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives, such as how it relates to the authenticate sibling tool.

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

• authenticateA
  3.7/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: the OAuth flow type, browser interaction, and environment variable usage. However, it misses details like error handling, timeout behavior, or what happens post-authentication (e.g., token storage). It doesn't contradict annotations, as none exist.

  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 highly concise and well-structured: three short sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by implementation details. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, 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.

  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 (authentication with OAuth), no annotations, and an output schema present, the description is reasonably complete. It covers the method, user interaction, and configuration sources. However, it could benefit from mentioning the output (e.g., token or session) or prerequisites, but the output schema mitigates some of this gap.

  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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately adds context about environment variables (DATABRICKS_HOST, DATABRICKS_APP_URL) that aren't in the schema, providing useful operational semantics 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: 'Authenticate with Databricks using OAuth U2M flow.' It specifies the action (authenticate), target system (Databricks), and method (OAuth U2M flow). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'call_databricks_tool' or 'list_databricks_tools' in terms of authentication vs. subsequent operations.

  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 usage context by mentioning it 'Opens a browser for authorization' and uses environment variables, suggesting it's for initial setup. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this vs. alternatives (e.g., whether it's required before calling sibling tools) or any exclusions, leaving some ambiguity.

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

• list_databricks_toolsA
  4.1/5.0
  Behavior3/5

  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 the authentication requirement, which is a key behavioral trait, but lacks details on rate limits, error handling, or what 'list all' entails (e.g., pagination, format). The description doesn't contradict annotations, but it's minimal beyond the auth note.

  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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a critical prerequisite. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff. It's efficiently structured for quick comprehension by an AI agent.

  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 simplicity (0 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the purpose and a key prerequisite. The output schema likely handles return values, so the description doesn't need to explain them. However, it could benefit from more behavioral context, such as response format hints.

  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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate here. A baseline of 4 is given since the schema fully covers the lack of parameters, and the description doesn't need to compensate.

  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 tools') and resource ('on the remote Databricks MCP server'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'authenticate' and 'call_databricks_tool' by focusing on listing rather than authentication or execution. However, it doesn't specify the exact scope or format of what 'tools' means, keeping it from a perfect score.

  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?

  The description explicitly states 'Must authenticate first,' providing clear prerequisite guidance for when to use this tool. This directly addresses the relationship with the sibling 'authenticate' tool, indicating that authentication is required before invocation. No alternatives are mentioned, but the guidance is specific and actionable.

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