Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• add_promptC
  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 implies a write operation ('Add') but doesn't specify permissions, side effects (e.g., overwriting existing prompts), or error handling. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

  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, efficient sentence with no wasted words, clearly stating the tool's action. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to understand at a glance.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness2/5

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

  Given the tool's complexity as a mutation operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavior, return values, or error cases, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to use it correctly.

  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 input schema fully documents the three parameters (name, filename, content). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as format examples or constraints, resulting in the baseline score for high 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 action ('Add') and resource ('new prompt to the collection'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_structured_prompt' which likely serves a similar purpose, preventing 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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_structured_prompt' or 'list_prompts', nor does it mention prerequisites or context for adding prompts. It's a basic statement with no usage instructions.

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

• create_structured_promptC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states it creates a prompt with metadata. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as permissions needed, whether creation is idempotent, error handling, or response format, leaving significant gaps for a mutation tool.

  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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and key feature ('guided metadata structure'). It avoids redundancy and wastes no words, making it highly concise and well-structured.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness2/5

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

  For a mutation tool with 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, error cases, return values, and differentiation from siblings, failing to compensate for the absence of structured metadata.

  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 fully documents all 8 parameters. The description adds minimal value by mentioning 'guided metadata structure', which loosely relates to parameters like category and tags, but doesn't provide additional semantics beyond the 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 action ('Create') and resource ('new prompt'), specifying it involves 'guided metadata structure'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'add_prompt' by emphasizing structured metadata, but doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings (e.g., 'get_prompt').

  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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'add_prompt' is provided. The description implies creation with metadata, but lacks explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions for tool selection among siblings.

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

• delete_promptC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool deletes a prompt, implying a destructive mutation, but doesn't cover critical aspects like permissions needed, whether deletion is permanent or reversible, error handling (e.g., if the prompt doesn't exist), or side effects. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.

  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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place without redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness2/5

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

  For a destructive mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., permanence, permissions), error scenarios, or what happens post-deletion. Given the complexity of deletion operations and the absence of structured data to compensate, more context is needed to be fully helpful.

  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 schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'name' fully documented in the schema as 'Name of the prompt to delete'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as format constraints or examples. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

  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 'Delete a prompt by name' clearly states the action (delete) and resource (prompt) with a specific method (by name). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_prompt' or 'list_prompts' by indicating a destructive operation, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings like 'add_prompt' or 'create_structured_prompt'. This makes it clear but not fully differentiated.

  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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing prompt), exclusions (e.g., not for structured prompts), or direct comparisons to siblings like 'add_prompt' or 'get_prompt'. Without such context, users must infer usage from the name alone.

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

• get_promptC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Retrieve' implies a read operation, but it doesn't specify permissions needed, error handling (e.g., if the prompt doesn't exist), rate limits, or response format. For a tool with zero 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.

  Conciseness5/5

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

  The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action ('retrieve a prompt') and includes the key constraint ('by name'), making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place without redundancy.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness2/5

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

  Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'retrieve' entails (e.g., returns prompt content, metadata, or both), error cases, or how it differs behaviorally from siblings. For a tool in a set with multiple prompt-related operations, more context is needed to guide effective use.

  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 schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'name' fully documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by implying the parameter is used to identify the prompt, but it doesn't provide additional context like format examples or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

  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 ('retrieve') and resource ('prompt'), specifying it's done 'by name'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_prompts' (which retrieves multiple) and 'delete_prompt' (which removes). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'add_prompt' or 'create_structured_prompt' in terms of retrieval vs. creation, though the verb 'retrieve' implies read-only access.

  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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing prompt), exclusions (e.g., not for creating prompts), or direct comparisons to siblings like 'list_prompts' for browsing all prompts. Usage is implied by the action but not explicitly stated.

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

• list_promptsB
  3.1/5.0
  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 only states the action ('List all available prompts') without mentioning critical details like whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires specific permissions, how results are returned (e.g., pagination), or any 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 a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly. Every word earns its place by directly conveying the tool's purpose.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness2/5

  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 output schema), the description is minimal but adequate for basic understanding. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it lacks context about behavioral traits (e.g., safety, return format) and doesn't differentiate from siblings, making it incomplete for optimal agent usage in a multi-tool environment.

  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 doesn't mention parameters, which is efficient and avoids redundancy. A baseline of 4 is justified as the description doesn't need to compensate for any schema gaps.

  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 ('List') and resource ('all available prompts'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_prompt' (which likely retrieves a specific prompt), leaving room for confusion about when to use each.

  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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_prompt' or 'add_prompt'. It lacks context about prerequisites, such as whether authentication is needed or if there are any filtering options, which could help the agent choose appropriately.

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