Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• architectC
  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 that the tool 'interacts with the llm chat CLI to provide architectural design feedback while maintaining conversation context,' which implies it's a read/write operation with state persistence. However, it lacks details on authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what specific 'architectural design feedback' entails. For a tool with no annotation coverage, 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.

  Conciseness4/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the tool's role as an MCP server and its key functionality. It uses two sentences efficiently: the first covers the resource and parameters, and the second explains the interaction with the CLI and purpose. There's minimal waste, though it could be slightly more concise by integrating the two ideas more tightly.

  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 (a chat-based tool with conversation context), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It explains the tool's purpose and parameters but lacks details on behavioral traits like response format, error cases, or specific feedback mechanisms. For a tool without structured output information, it should do more to compensate, but it provides a basic viable understanding.

  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 semantic context beyond the input schema. It mentions that the tool accepts 'a prompt and optional conversationId,' which aligns with the schema's 'input' (required) and 'conversationId' (optional) parameters. However, with 100% schema description coverage (both parameters have descriptions in the schema), the description doesn't provide additional meaning or usage examples. This meets the baseline of 3 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's purpose: it's an MCP server that exposes a resource for POST requests to interact with an LLM chat CLI for architectural design feedback. It specifies the verb ('interacts with'), resource ('/llm-architect/chat'), and context ('maintaining conversation context'). However, since there are no sibling tools mentioned, it doesn't need to distinguish from alternatives, so it falls just short of 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 Guidelines2/5

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

  The description provides minimal usage guidance. It mentions that the tool accepts POST requests with a prompt and optional conversationId, but it doesn't explain when to use this tool versus other potential tools (though none are listed as siblings), nor does it provide context about when this specific architectural feedback tool is appropriate versus general chat tools. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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