Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get_component_detailsC
  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 full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Get' implies a read operation, it doesn't specify what 'detailed information' includes, whether there are authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or response format. 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.

  Conciseness4/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool, though it could potentially be more structured with additional context about what 'detailed information' entails.

  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?

  For a single-parameter read tool with good schema coverage but no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It identifies the core purpose but lacks important context about what constitutes 'detailed information', how results are structured, and differentiation from sibling tools. The absence of annotations and output schema increases the need for more descriptive completeness.

  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%, with the single parameter 'componentName' clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., no examples beyond those in schema, no format requirements). The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate coverage through the schema alone.

  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 'Get' and resource 'detailed information about a specific shadcn/ui component', making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_component_examples' or 'list_shadcn_components', which likely provide different types of component information.

  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 its siblings. It doesn't mention alternatives like 'get_component_examples' for usage examples or 'list_shadcn_components' for component listings, leaving the agent to guess about the appropriate context for this specific detail-retrieval tool.

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

• search_componentsC
  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 only states the search action without details on permissions, rate limits, response format, or whether it's read-only or destructive. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely interacts with external resources.

  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 wasted 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.

  Completeness2/5

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

  Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like safety or response format, and while the parameter is covered by the schema, the overall context for a search tool interacting with UI components is underspecified.

  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 description coverage is 100%, with the 'query' parameter fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying keyword-based search, which is already covered by the schema's description. This meets the baseline 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 action ('Search for') and resource ('shadcn/ui components') with a specific method ('by keyword'), making the purpose evident. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_shadcn_components' or 'get_component_details', which could involve similar resources but different operations.

  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 sibling tools like 'list_shadcn_components' for unfiltered listing or 'get_component_details' for specific component info, 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.

• get_component_examplesB
  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 retrieves 'usage examples,' which implies a read-only operation, but does not address potential behavioral traits such as error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or output format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its 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, clear sentence: 'Get usage examples for a specific shadcn/ui component.' It is front-loaded with the core purpose, avoids redundancy, and is appropriately sized for a simple tool. 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 low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally complete. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on behavioral aspects, usage guidelines, and output expectations. Without annotations or an output schema, the description should do more to compensate, but it remains adequate for a simple read operation, albeit with clear gaps.

  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 'componentName' fully documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by specifying 'shadcn/ui component,' but does not provide additional semantics like example formats or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles most of the parameter 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 tool's purpose: 'Get usage examples for a specific shadcn/ui component.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('usage examples'), and the component type ('shadcn/ui') provides context. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_component_details' (which might return metadata) or 'search_components' (which might list components), leaving some ambiguity in sibling differentiation.

  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 does not mention sibling tools like 'get_component_details' or 'list_shadcn_components', nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. The context is implied (e.g., for learning how to use a component), but no explicit usage instructions are given.

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

• list_shadcn_componentsB
  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 the tool 'gets a list' but doesn't describe return format, pagination, rate limits, or error handling. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves beyond the basic action.

  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 any wasted words. Every part of the sentence ('Get a list of all available shadcn/ui components') directly contributes to understanding the tool's function, making it optimally 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 low complexity (0 parameters, no output schema), the description is adequate but has clear gaps. It covers the basic purpose but lacks behavioral details like return format or usage guidelines relative to siblings. Without annotations or output schema, more context on what the list contains or how to interpret results 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 appropriately doesn't mention parameters, and the baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as it avoids unnecessary details while matching the schema's simplicity.

  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 ('Get a list') and target resource ('all available shadcn/ui components'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_components' or 'get_component_details', which prevents a perfect score, but the verb+resource combination is specific and unambiguous.

  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?

  No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_components' or 'get_component_details'. The description implies it retrieves all components without filtering, but this is not stated explicitly, leaving the agent to infer usage context without clear direction.

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