Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get_api_endpoint_schemaA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations provided; description details case-insensitivity for method, leading slash stripping for path, case-sensitive lookup, and the return object structure with error handling including did_you_mean hint. Lacks discussion of auth or rate limits, but core behavior is well covered.

  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, front-loaded with purpose, and well-structured with Args and Returns sections. Every sentence provides value without waste.

  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 complexity (retrieving a schema), an output schema exists (so return values are documented separately). The description covers input behavior, error handling, and hints at the output structure, making it complete for an agent to use correctly.

  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% schema description coverage, the description adds essential meaning: case-insensitivity for method, and path processing details (leading slash stripped, case-sensitive lookup). This goes beyond the simple type info in the schema.

  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 'Return the full schema for one Cin7 API endpoint' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like invoke, list, and report.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines3/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description implies when to use (when schema is needed) but does not explicitly provide when-not-to-use or compare with alternatives like invoke_api_endpoint or list_api_endpoints.

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

• list_api_endpointsA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description discloses the return format ('Returns: ...'), including handling of empty keyword (extra 'error' key). It describes search behavior (case-insensitive substring match). No side effects are mentioned, but it's a read operation. The description is transparent about what the tool does and returns.

  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 well-structured with 'Args:' and 'Returns:' sections. Each sentence adds value without redundancy. It is concise yet thorough.

  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?

  The description covers purpose, parameters, and return format comprehensively. It lacks mention of authentication requirements or potential errors (beyond empty keyword), but given the output schema exists and the tool is straightforward, it is mostly complete.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters5/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The description fully explains each parameter beyond the schema: keyword (substring match, case-insensitive), methods (optional, valid HTTP methods), limit (max results, default 25). Schema has 0% coverage, so the description compensates completely.

  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: 'Search Cin7 Core's REST endpoints by keyword.' It specifies the action (search), the resource (endpoints), and distinguishes from siblings like get_api_endpoint_schema (get schema) and invoke_api_endpoint (invoke).

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines3/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description implies usage (search endpoints) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., get_api_endpoint_schema for details on a specific endpoint). No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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

• report_issueA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It explains parameters and return values but does not disclose behavioral traits like idempotency, safety, side effects (e.g., whether it mutates state or requires permissions). The return includes 'stored_in_file' and 'stored_in_log,' suggesting storage, but this is not explicitly stated.

  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 well-structured with Args and Returns sections. It is front-loaded with the purpose. However, some details (like default values) are repeated from the schema, and the description could be slightly shortened without losing clarity.

  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 complexity (9 parameters, output schema), the description covers all aspects: purpose, parameters, return values, and error case. It provides sufficient context for an agent to correctly invoke the tool.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters5/5

  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. It provides detailed explanations for all 9 parameters, including enum values, defaults, and constraints (e.g., 'Capped at 2000 chars'), adding significant meaning beyond the schema.

  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 starts with 'File a structured bug report for later developer review,' which clearly states the verb and resource. The tool is distinct from its siblings (get_api_endpoint_schema, invoke_api_endpoint, list_api_endpoints), as it is for reporting issues, not exploring APIs.

  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 implies usage for bug reporting but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. The context and siblings make it clear, but there is no explicit guidance on exclusions or conditions.

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

• invoke_api_endpointA
  4.7/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavior: validation then execution, specific return structures for success, 4xx errors, and validation failures, plus a list of transport-level exceptions. It also mentions case-insensitivity and leading-slash stripping.

  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 somewhat lengthy but well-structured with bullet points. It front-loads the purpose, then details args, returns, and exceptions. Every sentence is informative, though slight trimming could be done while maintaining clarity.

  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 complexity (4 parameters, validation, multiple return types, exceptions) and the presence of an output schema (not shown), the description provides comprehensive coverage: parameter semantics, return value formats, error handling, and exceptions. No gaps remain.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters5/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema coverage is 0%, but the description thoroughly explains all four parameters: method (case-insensitive, allowed verbs), path (example, leading slashes stripped), query_params (validated against endpoint schema), and body (validated, extras permitted). It compensates fully for the schema's lack of descriptions.

  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 validates then executes a Cin7 Core REST API call. It lists the HTTP method and endpoint path, distinguishing it from sibling tools that retrieve schemas or list endpoints.

  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 provides detailed parameter explanations, validation steps, and expected return formats. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like get_api_endpoint_schema, but it gives sufficient context for when to invoke this tool.

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