Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• list-apiA
  4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly says the tool 'only returns a list' and clarifies that actual database construction and operations happen afterward by the agent, which communicates that this tool is read-only and non-mutating.

  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 reasonably concise and front-loads the usage condition, then states the behavior and expected follow-up. There is slight redundancy in repeating '根据你的业务需求', but overall it is direct and efficient.

  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?

  This is a zero-parameter listing tool with no output schema and no annotations. The description covers when to use it, what it returns, and what the agent should do after calling it, which is enough for an agent to start correctly. It does not describe the list's format, but for a simple list-API tool that is a minor gap.

  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 no parameters, so the description does not need to explain parameter details. The baseline of 4 applies, and nothing in the description contradicts the empty 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 that the tool returns a list of framework-available APIs for Mybatis-Flex database operations. It identifies a specific verb and resource, but does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like get-api-doc or get-mybatis-flex-info.

  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 gives a clear context for use: when the user is doing backend development with Mybatis-Flex and needs to perform database operations. It does not mention alternatives or exclusion conditions, so it stops short of a 5.

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

• get-api-docA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It communicates that the tool returns detailed documentation including introduction, limitations, scenarios, and example code, making the read-only nature and expected output clear. Minor gaps around not-found or error behavior remain.

  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 and front-loaded: one clear purpose sentence followed by a short bulleted list of scenarios. Every sentence earns its place and there is no redundant or vague phrasing.

  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 tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description covers both tool selection and expected return content. It could be more complete by hinting that list-api can be used first if the exact API name is unknown, and by explaining failure behavior, but these are minor omissions.

  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 already describes the single parameter apiName with concrete examples like IService, QueryWrapper, and @Table. The description only adds 'by name', which does not meaningfully extend the schema's parameter documentation. Given 100% schema coverage, the baseline 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 a specific action and resource: fetch detailed documentation for a named Mybatis-Flex API/feature via its name. It is distinguishable from siblings like list-api, get-changelog, and get-mybatis-flex-info, 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 applicable scenarios are explicitly listed: when the user asks how to use a specific API/function, or needs its introduction, usage restrictions, scenarios, and examples. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use cases, so it misses the top score.

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

• get-mybatis-flex-infoA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It conveys that the tool is a read-only information retrieval (via '获取'), but it does not disclose any additional traits such as whether the version data is live, cached, or how errors surface. The absence is not severe for a zero-parameter getter, but the description stays at a core-outcome level.

  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 compact and front-loaded with the action, then enriched by a clear two-item usage-scenario list. Every line carries purpose and there is no redundant filler.

  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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description provides enough context: the target framework, the information type, and when to apply it. It could go further by explicitly distinguishing itself from get-changelog/get-api-doc, but that is already implicit in the stated resource.

  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 is empty and schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline for zero parameters is 4. The description adds no parameter details because there are none to explain; its content about returning intro/overview/version is the only context needed.

  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 states a specific verb ('获取') and resource (Mybatis-Flex) and indicates the information covered (简介、概况信息、version). This clearly separates it from sibling tools like list-api or get-changelog, which focus on different resources.

  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 explicitly lists two applicable scenarios: when the user asks what Mybatis-Flex is and when they need version info. However, it does not mention when not to use the tool or name any sibling alternatives, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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

• get-changelogA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the burden and clearly states the tool is a read-only retrieval of the changelog ('获取'). It does not mention output format or source, but for a zero-parameter read tool there is little additional behavioral risk to disclose.

  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?

  Two sentences with numbered use cases, front-loaded with the verb and resource. The two use cases somewhat overlap, which prevents a 5.

  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 parameterless read-only changelog tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description tells the agent what the tool returns and when to use it. Nothing necessary for correct invocation is missing.

  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?

  There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; the description correctly focuses on purpose rather than parameter details.

  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?

  Description states "获取 Mybatis-Flex（mybatis-flex）的更新日志 Changelog" — a specific verb and resource. It is clearly distinct from siblings list-api, get-api-doc, and get-mybaitis-flex-info because it targets the project changelog rather than API listings or general framework info.

  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?

  Provides explicit use cases: wanting to review framework update history or learn about newly added features. It does not explicitly exclude any sibling, but the scenarios are specific enough that no agent would confuse it with the sibling tools.

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