Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• deployA
  4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses substantive behavior: concurrent builds are hard-blocked, the same deployment branch can be redeployed directly, and switching branches has an anti-overwrite safeguard based on the most recent successful deployment SHA. This goes well beyond a generic 'deploys a branch' statement, though it does not cover permissions or failure results.

  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 primary action and then the key behavioral constraints. There is no redundant or filler content; every clause adds value.

  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 3-parameter deployment tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description plus schema covers the core action, essential constraints (concurrency, redeploy, anti-overwrite), and the conditional use of the force parameter. It does not describe return values, but the sibling get_status tool can supplement that gap.

  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%, and each parameter has a clear description: job requires the exact Jenkins job name, branch is the target branch, and force requires explicit user consent to overwrite. The description adds no additional per-parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

  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 action: '修改 BranchSpec 并触发构建' (modify BranchSpec and trigger a build), and the title '部署分支到 Job' identifies the resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools find_job and get_status, which are lookup and status operations respectively.

  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 through the title and action, and provides behavioral conditions like concurrent-build hard-blocking and redeployment rules. However, it does not explicitly state when to use deploy versus find_job/get_status, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites beyond the schema hint to locate the job with find_job.

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

• find_jobA
  4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by stating what is returned: 'Job 名、Jenkins 当前配置分支、仓库地址和链接' (job name, current branch, repo URL, link). This goes beyond the annotation and clarifies the output nature.

  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 concise sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. No redundant words or filler. It efficiently communicates the tool's purpose and result in one line.

  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?

  As a simple read-only lookup tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does and what it returns. It does not mention potential edge cases like multiple results or empty results, but for this scope it is sufficiently complete.

  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%: both 'repo' and 'env' have descriptions. The tool description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond the schema; it simply restates the overall purpose. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema carries full weight.

  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 uses a specific verb '定位' (locate/find) with a clear resource: 'Jenkins HOT/QAT/QAT2 候选 Job' by GitLab repository. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like 'deploy' and 'get_status' by focusing on locating candidate jobs rather than deploying or checking status.

  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: when you need to locate Jenkins jobs for a GitLab repo, use this tool. It mentions optional environment filtering, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_status' or 'deploy'. No exclusions or alternative guidance is provided.

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

• get_statusA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With readOnlyHint=true, the description adds specific behavioral context by enumerating exactly what status information is included (current config, build attempts, successful deployment, merge status). This goes beyond the basic read-only hint without contradicting it.

  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 concise sentence that front-loads the action (查看) and lists the exact scope. Every word contributes to the user's understanding.

  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?

  Given the simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description fully covers the purpose and scope. It clearly enumerates what the user can expect to see, making it contextually complete.

  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 description doesn't need to elaborate on the job parameter. The schema already documents it as an exact Jenkins job name with a find_job hint, which is sufficient.

  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 views Jenkins configuration, recent build attempts, latest successful deployment, and merge status. The verb '查看' (view) is specific and the resource scope distinguishes it from sibling tools find_job and deploy.

  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 schema hint '可先用 find_job 定位' provides clear context that this tool should be used after locating the job with find_job. It implicitly distinguishes from deploy, but doesn't explicitly state when not to use it.

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