Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• codexC
  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 states 'Execute Codex CLI in non-interactive mode' but doesn't explain what 'non-interactive' entails (e.g., single request vs. chat, no user input during execution), nor does it cover permissions, rate limits, or error handling, which are critical for an AI assistance 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 directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action, making it easy to parse quickly.

  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 complexity of an AI assistance tool with 5 parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavior (e.g., response format, error cases), usage context, and how parameters interact with 'non-interactive mode', leaving significant gaps for the agent.

  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 input schema has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't clarify 'non-interactive mode' in relation to parameters like 'sessionId'), so it doesn't enhance the schema's documentation.

  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 ('Execute Codex CLI') and the mode ('non-interactive mode for AI assistance'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'help' or 'listSessions' beyond the general AI assistance context, which prevents 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 'help' or 'listSessions'. It mentions 'non-interactive mode' but doesn't explain what that means or when it's appropriate, leaving the agent without clear usage context.

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

• listSessionsB
  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 full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a listing operation but doesn't reveal whether it's paginated, real-time vs cached, permission requirements, rate limits, or what 'active' means (timeout thresholds). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral 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 a single, efficient sentence that communicates the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the main action and resource, and every element ('List', 'all active conversation sessions', 'with metadata') serves a clear informational purpose. No wasted verbiage.

  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 no annotations, no output schema, and a simple zero-parameter design, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what metadata is returned, format of results, whether sessions are sorted/filterable, or error conditions. For a listing tool that presumably returns structured data, more context about output expectations 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, and schema description coverage is 100% (though empty). The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist, and it adds value by clarifying scope ('active') and output content ('with metadata') beyond what an empty schema provides. This meets the baseline for zero-parameter tools.

  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 ('List') and resource ('all active conversation sessions with metadata'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't distinguish from siblings, but since siblings are unrelated tools (codex, help, ping), differentiation isn't needed here. The description goes beyond tautology by specifying scope ('active') and what's included ('with metadata').

  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. While it implies usage when needing to see active sessions, there's no mention of prerequisites, frequency considerations, or comparison to other session-related tools (though none appear in siblings). This leaves the agent without contextual usage instructions.

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

• pingB
  3.1/5.0
  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 tests connection but doesn't describe what 'test' entails (e.g., whether it sends a request, checks latency, returns status codes), what happens on failure, or any side effects. This leaves significant gaps in understanding 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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It is 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.

  Completeness3/5

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

  Given the tool's low complexity (one optional parameter) and high schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, without annotations or an output schema, it lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., what 'test' means, response format) that would help the agent use it correctly, leaving room for improvement.

  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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the parameter 'message' documented as 'Message to echo back'. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline score of 3 for high schema 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 tool's purpose as testing MCP server connection, which is a specific action (test) on a specific resource (MCP server connection). However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'help' or 'listSessions', which might also involve server interaction, 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 any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, and doesn't reference sibling tools. The agent must infer usage based on the name and description alone.

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

• helpB
  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 full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does ('Get help information') but doesn't describe behavioral traits such as output format, error handling, or any constraints. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

  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 purpose and uses minimal words to convey the essential information. Every word earns its place, 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.

  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 output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but has clear gaps. It states the purpose but lacks details on behavioral aspects like what the help information includes or how it's formatted. For a help tool, more context on output expectations 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 tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there's no need for parameter details in the description. The description appropriately doesn't mention parameters, which is correct for a no-parameter tool. It adds no semantic value beyond the schema, but that's acceptable here.

  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 'Get Codex CLI help information' clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('Codex CLI help information'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It's specific enough to distinguish it from siblings like 'codex', 'listSessions', and 'ping', though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from them. The verb 'Get' is appropriate for a help retrieval operation.

  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 any prerequisites, context for usage, or comparisons to sibling tools. While the purpose is clear, the lack of usage instructions leaves the agent without direction on optimal invocation timing.

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