Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• read_neo4j_cypherB
  3.4/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond restating 'read', which is already present in the annotations. It does not disclose any error behavior, result shape, or side-effect details, so it contributes no value beyond the structured metadata.

  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 a single concise sentence with no redundant filler. It front-loads the core purpose and read-only nature. While it is minimal, it is not bloated and earns its place, though it could slightly benefit from mentioning the sibling distinction.

  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?

  For a read-only Cypher execution tool with full parameter schema coverage and strong safety annotations, the description is mostly sufficient. However, it does not explain when to prefer this tool over get_neo4j_schema, nor does it mention potential limitations of read queries. Given the tool's technical complexity, a bit more context about acceptable query scope would improve completeness.

  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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters: 'query' as the Cypher query to execute and 'params' as the parameters to pass. The description itself adds no additional semantic detail about parameter usage, formatting, or the relationship between query and params. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the full burden.

  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 specifies a clear action ('Execute'), a clear resource ('a read Cypher query on the neo4j database'), and explicitly limits the operation to reads, distinguishing it from its write sibling. Even without opening the schema, an agent understands exactly what this tool does and that it is the read counterpart to write_neo4j_cypher.

  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 clearly implies this tool is for read-only Cypher queries, which suggests it should not be used for mutations. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives, exclusions, or conditions such as 'use write_neo4j_cypher for writes' or 'use get_neo4j_schema for schema introspection', so the guidance remains implicit rather than explicit.

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

• get_neo4j_schemaA
  3.5/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the 'List' verb is consistent with them. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact beyond annotations: the APOC plugin dependency, which can cause runtime failure. However, it does not disclose what happens when APOC is missing or how the schema is returned.

  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?

  Two sentences with zero waste: the first states the action and scope, the second states the prerequisite. The main purpose is front-loaded and every word earns its place.

  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 zero-parameter read-only tool with annotations covering the safety profile, the description covers the essentials: what is returned (nodes, attributes, relationships) and a critical prerequisite. Minor gaps include the absence of output format expectations and performance caveats for large schemas, but these are not blocking for correct invocation.

  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 the description carries no burden for documenting parameter meaning. The baseline of 4 applies, and the absence of parameter-specific description is not a deficiency.

  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 uses a specific verb ('List') with a clearly defined resource: nodes, attributes, and relationships in the Neo4j database. This conveys schema introspection as a distinct operation, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling Cypher execution tools by name.

  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 given about when to use this tool versus read_neo4j_cypher or write_neo4j_cypher. The APOC prerequisite is a dependency condition, not a selection directive, so the agent must infer the appropriate context on its own.

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

• write_neo4j_cypherA
  3.5/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false. The description merely repeats the write nature and adds no new behavioral context such as side effects, irreversibility, or required permissions.

  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 with no filler or redundant elaboration. The core action and target are front-loaded, making it immediately scannable.

  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 description is enough to choose and invoke the tool with query and params, but it lacks return-value expectations, side-effect warnings beyond annotations, and any usage boundary against read_neo4j_cypher. Given no output schema, a bit more context would improve completeness.

  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 adds little beyond the schema's existing parameter descriptions: it names query and params but gives no extra detail about parameter syntax, injection risks, or expected format.

  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 states a specific action ('Execute') on a specific resource ('a write Cypher query on the neo4j database'). The 'write' qualifier clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like read_neo4j_cypher and get_neo4j_schema.

  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 'write' wording implies this tool is for mutating queries while read_neo4j_cypher handles reads, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. No alternatives are named directly.

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