Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• assess_security_postureA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, which the description doesn't contradict. The description adds valuable behavioral context about what the assessment includes (findings correlation, compliance status, risk scoring, recommendations, resource analysis) that goes beyond the annotations. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication requirements, or execution time.

  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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose. The bulleted list efficiently communicates key capabilities. While comprehensive, every sentence adds value, though the final usage sentence could be more concise.

  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 and the presence of an output schema, the description provides good context about what the assessment includes and when to use it. With annotations covering safety aspects and an output schema handling return values, the description focuses appropriately on the tool's purpose and capabilities.

  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?

  With 0% schema description coverage, the description doesn't explain any of the 5 parameters (scope, target, frameworks, severity_threshold, include_recommendations). However, it does mention 'multi-framework compliance assessment' which relates to the frameworks parameter, and 'prioritized findings' which relates to severity_threshold. This provides some context but doesn't fully compensate for the schema coverage gap.

  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 ('perform comprehensive security assessment') and resource ('AWS infrastructure'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_server_info and health_check. It provides detailed scope including multi-service orchestration and multi-framework compliance assessment.

  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?

  Explicit guidance is provided: 'Use this tool to get a comprehensive understanding of your AWS security posture and identify the most critical security issues that need attention.' This clearly defines when to use this tool versus simpler sibling tools like health_check or get_server_info.

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

• get_server_infoA
  4.7/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, indicating a safe read operation with deterministic behavior. The description adds valuable context about what information is returned (capabilities, services, frameworks, engines) and the tool's purpose for understanding server functionality, which goes beyond the basic safety annotations.

  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 perfectly structured with three concise sentences: first states the core purpose, second elaborates on what information is provided, third gives explicit usage guidance. Every sentence adds value with zero redundancy or wasted words.

  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 has 0 parameters, comprehensive annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint), and an output schema exists, the description provides complete context. It explains what the tool does, what information it returns, and when to use it, which is fully adequate for this simple informational tool.

  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?

  With 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the baseline would be 4. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist, and instead focuses on the tool's purpose and output semantics, which is the correct approach for a parameterless tool.

  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 ('Get detailed information') and resource ('AWS Security Posture Advisor MCP server'), with explicit details about what information is provided ('server capabilities, supported AWS services, compliance frameworks, and available intelligence engines'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on server metadata rather than security assessments or health checks.

  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 states when to use this tool: 'Use this tool to understand what the server can do and how to use its capabilities.' This provides clear context for usage (understanding server capabilities) and implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools that perform security assessments or health checks.

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

• health_checkA
  4.7/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, indicating a safe, read-only operation with deterministic behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond this by specifying what gets checked (server configuration, AWS connectivity, service availability) and the tool's troubleshooting role. It doesn't contradict annotations, and while it doesn't detail rate limits or auth needs, the added context justifies a score above the baseline.

  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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by specific use cases and return details. Each sentence adds distinct value without repetition or fluff, making it highly efficient and well-structured for quick comprehension by an AI agent.

  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 low complexity (0 parameters), rich annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint), and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It clearly explains the tool's purpose, usage guidelines, and what it returns, without needing to detail parameters or output structure, which are covered elsewhere.

  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 discuss parameters, focusing instead on the tool's purpose and output. A baseline of 4 is applied as per the rules for 0 parameters, as it efficiently avoids redundant information.

  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 purpose with specific verbs ('check', 'verifies') and resources ('AWS Security Posture Advisor MCP server', 'server configuration, AWS connectivity, and service availability'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'assess_security_posture' (which likely analyzes security) and 'get_server_info' (which likely provides general server information) by focusing specifically on health verification and troubleshooting.

  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 states when to use this tool: 'Use this tool to troubleshoot connection issues or verify proper setup.' This provides clear context for usage and implicitly suggests alternatives (e.g., use other tools for non-troubleshooting purposes). It effectively guides the agent on appropriate scenarios for invocation.

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