Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• generate_propertyA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations are sparse (only openWorldHint=true), but the description compensates by explicitly stating 'This tool does not write to disk' and describing the return payload (content_preview and target output schema). This provides sufficient behavioral context beyond annotations.

  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 two paragraphs with bullet points for use cases. It is concise and front-loaded with the core function. The extra sentences about use cases and linking to write_property earn their place, though the overwrite default contradiction adds unnecessary confusion.

  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 no output schema, the description explains the return structure adequately. It covers use cases and references to sibling tools. However, it fails to mention the potential side effect of overwrite when combined with write_property, and the default value inconsistency hurts completeness.

  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?

  While schema coverage is 100%, the description contains a contradiction: it states 'Default: false' for the 'overwrite' parameter, but the input schema shows 'default': true. This inconsistency could mislead the agent. The description does add the context of overwriting existing properties, but the error reduces reliability.

  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 'Reads a target markdown document and returns an AI-facing payload for generating frontmatter properties.' The verb 'reads' and resource 'markdown document' are specific, and the distinction from the sibling 'write_property' is clear because it explicitly says this tool does not write to disk.

  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 explicit use cases: 'After completing a draft, when you need property suggestions from content' and 'When missing frontmatter fields should be generated.' It also advises to use 'write_property' to apply the generated properties. However, it does not compare against all siblings like 'create_document_with_properties', which might have overlapping functionality.

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

• write_propertyA
  4.1/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  The description explains overwrite behavior for existing properties and provides return value format. With only openWorldHint annotation, it adds meaningful transparency beyond what annotations offer. No contradictions.

  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?

  Well-structured with sections for overview, parameters, return value, and dependencies. Examples are helpful but slightly verbose. Front-loaded with purpose, making it easy to scan.

  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?

  Covers usage, dependencies, and return value. No output schema, but description provides example. Could explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'create_document_with_properties', but overall sufficiently complete for a mutation tool.

  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 baseline is 3. Description adds value with examples and overwrite behavior for the properties object, but omits the 'quiet' parameter entirely, and schema default (true) contradicts description's implied default (false) if quiet were mentioned. This reduces score slightly.

  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 adds/updates properties in Obsidian frontmatter, explicitly linking it to the 'generate_property' tool for applying metadata. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_document_with_properties' by focusing on existing files.

  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 indicates primary use case (apply metadata from generate_property) and prerequisites (vault path environment variable). It lacks explicit when-not-to-use instructions but provides sufficient context for appropriate invocation.

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

• organize_attachmentsA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  The description openly describes the tool's actions: scanning a file, moving attachments to a new folder, and updating links. This discloses its mutating behavior, aligning with the openWorldHint annotation. It doesn't elaborate on reversibility or permissions, but the core behavior is transparent.

  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 concise and well-structured, starting with a clear action, followed by use cases and an example workflow. Every sentence adds meaningful information without redundancy.

  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 (4 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the process thoroughly, including the steps and file organization. It does not explain return values or error handling, but this is acceptable since there is no output schema. The example workflow compensates for minor gaps.

  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?

  All four parameters have descriptions in the input schema, and the description adds value through an example workflow that illustrates how keyword, destination, and useTitleAsFolderName are used. The quiet parameter is not elaborated in the description beyond the schema, so the description adds limited additional semantics beyond the schema's descriptions.

  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 scans a markdown file for attachments, moves them to a dedicated folder, and updates links. It includes specific use cases and an example workflow, making the purpose unmistakable and distinct from sibling tools like create_document_with_properties or vault.

  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 use cases, such as when a post is finalized and you want to clean up attachments. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or mention alternatives, though the sibling tools are sufficiently different to avoid confusion.

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

• vaultA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations only provide openWorldHint. The description adds behavioral details: returns content and metadata, and includes crucial instruction about relaying diagnostic messages. This goes beyond annotations by disclosing expected output and a user interaction requirement.

  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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, when to use, return info, requirements, important instruction). It is front-loaded with the primary purpose. Though slightly verbose, every section 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?

  Given the complexity (18 parameters, enums, no output schema), the description covers usage scenarios, return format, requirements, and a critical instruction. It provides sufficient context for an AI agent to use the tool effectively.

  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?

  Schema coverage is 100%, so all parameters are described in the schema. The description adds contextual usage hints (e.g., 'use exact filename or core keywords for searches'), which enhances understanding beyond the schema descriptions.

  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 retrieves and searches Markdown documents in an Obsidian vault, specifying verb (retrieves, searches) and resource (Markdown documents). It implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools (which are for writing/properties) by focusing on reading/searching.

  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 a detailed 'When to use' section with specific scenarios (find note, synthesize info, find answers, etc.) and mentions triggering re-indexing. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or compare with sibling tools.

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

• create_document_with_propertiesA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations include openWorldHint: true, indicating side effects. The description details the two-step workflow, including that it writes properties using the same logic as write_property. It adds context beyond annotations by explaining the workflow and return of structured payload.

  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 concise and well-structured: first sentence states purpose, then numbered steps, then usage guidance. No wasted words, each sentence contributes meaning.

  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?

  The tool has moderate complexity (5 params, nested objects, workflow). The description covers the workflow and parameter roles adequately. No output schema, but it mentions the return format implicitly. Slightly incomplete on return specifics but acceptable.

  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?

  Schema coverage is 100%, providing baseline 3. The description adds value by explaining parameter roles in the workflow, such as sourcePath for reading and aiGeneratedProperties for the second call, going beyond schema descriptions.

  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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: starting and completing a two-step workflow for AI-generated frontmatter properties. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like write_property and generate_property by describing a compound workflow.

  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 advises when to use the tool: when an AI agent should orchestrate analysis and write in a consistent workflow. It implies but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, though it references the same write logic as write_property.

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