Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• set_timeoutA
  4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the timeout behavior and that 0 disables auto-unload, going beyond the schema by clarifying 'inactivity.' However, it does not mention side effects, persistence, or whether it applies to the current session only, leaving some gaps.

  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 action, and every sentence adds value. It is extremely concise with no wasted words.

  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 simple one-parameter setter with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it covers the action, behavior, and parameter semantics. It does not explain return values or error handling, but these are reasonably implied for a setter. It could mention that unload_model is for manual unloading, but this is not essential.

  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 baseline is 3. The description restates the parameter's meaning ('Set to 0 to disable auto-unload') and adds the 'inactivity' context, but this is marginal added value over the schema's 'Timeout in seconds (0 to disable auto-unload)'.

  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 function: 'Set the auto-unload timeout for the FLUX model.' It uses a specific verb ('set') and resource ('auto-unload timeout'), distinguishing it from siblings like unload_model, which handles manual unloading.

  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 by explaining the behavior ('model will automatically unload after this many seconds of inactivity'), but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool over alternatives like unload_model or provide exclusion criteria. It lacks clear context for when to choose this tool.

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

• unload_modelA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose key behaviors: immediate unload and automatic reload on the next generation request. However, it does not mention side effects on ongoing generations, error conditions, or idempotency, leaving some ambiguity for a mutation-like 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 three short sentences that are direct and to the point. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value without repetition.

  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?

  For a zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is complete. It explains what the tool does, when to use it, and what happens after (auto-reload). No additional context is needed.

  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 baseline is 4. No parameter information is needed, and the description does not attempt to add any.

  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 specific action: 'Immediately unload the FLUX model from GPU memory.' It uses a specific verb ('unload') and resource ('FLUX model from GPU memory'), and it is easily distinguished from sibling tools like generate_image or get_preview.

  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 context: 'Use this to free up VRAM when you're done generating images.' It tells the user when to invoke the tool and what to expect next (auto-reload), though it does not mention explicit exclusions or alternatives.

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

• generate_imageA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description takes on the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It thoroughly explains that the tool is non-blocking, takes 4-40 minutes, may cause timeout errors that are expected, and saves images to a configured output directory with embedded metadata. This is exemplary transparency.

  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 well-structured and appropriately sized. It leads with purpose, then model options, then critical operational warnings. Every sentence contributes necessary usage or behavioral information, with no fluff or repetition.

  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 tool's complexity and lack of an output schema, the description covers the full lifecycle: what it does, which models to choose, how long it takes, what to expect regarding timeouts, and where results are saved. It even advises the user on how to handle the result. This is highly 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?

  All 7 parameters are fully documented in the input schema with defaults, ranges, and descriptions, so coverage is 100%. The description adds context about model-specific step defaults and performance differences, but this information is already largely present in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since no significant additional semantics are provided.

  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 it generates high-quality images using FLUX models, naming specific models (FLUX.1-dev and FLUX.2-dev). This specific verb+resource action distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_preview, unload_model, get_status, and set_timeout, which all have different purposes.

  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 guidance on how to handle the tool's long-running and non-blocking nature, including instructions to not treat timeouts as failures and to inform the user about background generation. It does not explicitly mention alternatives like get_preview for previews, but the usage context is clear and actionable.

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

• get_statusA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations are provided, but the description carries the burden well by explicitly stating the read-only nature ('Get', 'Shows') and detailing the specific status data it returns (model loaded, auto-unload time, VRAM). This gives the agent a clear picture of the tool's behavior without needing to infer side effects.

  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 short, information-dense sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second lists the specific outputs. No wasted words, and the most important information is front-loaded.

  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?

  For a simple, zero-parameter, read-only tool, this description is complete. There is no output schema, but the description enumerates all the relevant return values (loaded status, auto-unload time, VRAM usage). An agent has sufficient information to decide when to invoke it and what to expect.

  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 schema coverage is 100% and the baseline is 4. The description correctly makes no mention of parameters, and the tool's operation is entirely defined by its lack of inputs.

  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 ('Get') and resource ('status of the FLUX generator'), and lists exactly what it shows (model loaded, time until auto-unload, VRAM usage). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_preview or generate_image, which serve different purposes.

  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 clearly implies when to use it: whenever the agent needs to check generator status. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the context is obvious and no exclusions are needed. The sibling tools are clearly different in function.

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

• get_previewA
  4.7/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that it returns the thumbnail inline and the full-size image path, and explains the optional behavior of omitting image_id to get the last generated image. This gives a clear picture of what to expect from the 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 concise, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and all three sentences add valuable information without redundancy. It avoids unnecessary detail while covering purpose, usage, and return behavior.

  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?

  For a simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is complete. It covers purpose, when to use, parameter behavior, and return information, leaving no significant gaps for the agent to infer.

  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 fully documents the image_id parameter. The description repeats this information but does not add additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides. The baseline score 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 retrieves a preview thumbnail of a generated image, using the specific verb 'retrieve' and a clear resource. It is distinguishable from siblings like generate_image, unload_model, get_status, and set_timeout, which serve different purposes.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines5/5

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

  The description explicitly says to use this after generate_image completes, and it highlights a specific use case for FLUX.2-dev background generations where the MCP client timed out. This provides clear when-to-use guidance and implicitly excludes other contexts, with no competing sibling tool offering the same functionality.

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