Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• send_notificationC
  2.5/5.0
  Behavior1/5

  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 only states the basic action without mentioning critical traits like required webhook setup, authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what happens on failure. This is inadequate for a tool that likely involves external API calls and potential 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?

  The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to grasp immediately, which is ideal for conciseness.

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

  Completeness1/5

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

  Given the complexity of sending notifications to external services, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is severely incomplete. It lacks essential details like prerequisites (e.g., webhook URLs), behavioral expectations, and error handling, making it inadequate for safe and effective use by an AI agent.

  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?

  With 0% schema description coverage for 6 parameters, the description adds no meaning beyond the schema. It doesn't explain what parameters like 'avatar_url', 'embed_json', or 'tts' do, how they interact, or provide examples. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation, leaving parameters largely unexplained.

  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 ('send a notification') and target destinations ('Discord and/or Slack webhooks'), which is specific and actionable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its siblings (list_services, validate_webhook), which are clearly different operations, so it doesn't reach the highest 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, such as whether it's for urgent alerts or general messaging, or how it relates to sibling tools like validate_webhook. It mentions multiple services but doesn't clarify when to choose one over another, leaving usage context implied at best.

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

• validate_webhookC
  2.8/5.0
  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 mentions sending a test message but lacks critical details: whether this is a read-only or destructive operation (e.g., could it trigger unintended actions?), authentication requirements, rate limits, or what the response looks like (e.g., success/failure indicators). For a tool with potential side effects, this is a significant gap.

  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 purpose without unnecessary words. Every part earns its place by specifying the action and resource, making it easy to scan and understand quickly. No redundancy or fluff is present.

  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 (2 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks parameter explanations, behavioral context (e.g., side effects), and output details. While conciseness is high, it sacrifices necessary information for a tool that interacts with external services, leaving the agent under-informed.

  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?

  Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It doesn't explain the two parameters ('message' and 'service') at all—no mention of what the message should contain, the purpose of the service parameter, or the enum values ('discord', 'slack', 'both'). The description adds no value beyond the bare schema, failing to address the coverage gap.

  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 with a specific verb ('Test') and resource ('webhook connectivity'), and specifies the action ('by sending a test message'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'list_services' and 'send_notification' by focusing on validation rather than listing or general notification sending. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential alternatives for webhook testing within the same domain.

  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., webhook setup), when-not-to-use scenarios (e.g., for production notifications), or explicit alternatives among the sibling tools. The agent must infer usage from the purpose alone, which is insufficient for optimal tool selection.

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

• list_servicesB
  3.2/5.0
  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. It mentions listing both configured and auto-detected services, which adds some behavioral context, but doesn't disclose critical details like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, or what the output format looks like. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

  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 directly states the tool's function without any wasted words. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for its simple purpose.

  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 tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is adequate but has gaps. It explains what is listed but doesn't cover behavioral aspects like safety or output format. For a list operation, more context on what 'configured' and 'auto-detected' entail would improve completeness.

  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 doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate, but since there are no parameters, the baseline is high. It could be a 5 if it explicitly stated 'no parameters required', but it's still very clear in context.

  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 the resource 'configured webhook services and auto-detected default', making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from its siblings (send_notification, validate_webhook), which are clearly different operations, so it doesn't reach the highest 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. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context for listing services, or compare it to sibling tools like send_notification or validate_webhook, leaving usage decisions to inference.

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