Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get_meeting_summaryA
  3.5/5.0
  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 it gets a summary but does not clarify output format, authentication requirements, potential errors, or whether zoom_login is a prerequisite. This is a significant gap for a tool with no structured safety hints.

  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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It directly states the action and resource.

  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 simple one-parameter getter, the description is reasonably complete in purpose. However, it lacks guidance on workflow context (e.g., requires zoom_login, how to interpret the summary, or relation to sibling write tools). No output schema exists, so the description could have added return-value context.

  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% for the single parameter meeting_id, so the schema already documents it. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, which matches the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

  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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('full AI-generated summary for a specific Zoom meeting'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like list_meeting_summaries. The scope is precise 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 Guidelines3/5

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

  The description implies usage when you have a specific meeting_id and want the summary, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over sibling tools like list_meeting_summaries or write_summary_to_obsidian. No alternatives or prerequisites are mentioned.

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

• write_summary_to_obsidianA
  3.5/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations, the description must fully disclose side effects, but it only says 'append' without clarifying reversibility, required permissions, or what happens if no matching note exists. The matching logic is a helpful behavioral detail, but the tool's mutation aspect and potential failure modes are not addressed.

  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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the primary action, and includes a concrete example. Every word adds value, with no redundant phrasing or unnecessary details.

  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?

  The description covers the core functionality and matching rule, but given the absence of an output schema and annotations, it omits key context such as prerequisites (e.g., zoom_login), error behavior if no matching note exists, and how the summary is formatted. It is adequate but not fully complete for a tool with side effects.

  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 already provides a full description for the single parameter meeting_id ('The numeric Zoom meeting ID'), reaching 100% coverage. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so 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 the tool fetches a Zoom meeting summary and appends it to a person's note in Obsidian. It includes the specific matching logic ('matching the first name in the meeting topic') and gives an example, which differentiates it from siblings like get_meeting_summary (which only fetches) and write_all_summaries_to_obsidian (which writes all).

  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 explains what the tool does but does not explicitly say when to use it versus alternatives. The behavior is implied as a single-meeting operation, but there is no direct mention that write_all_summaries_to_obsidian should be used for bulk processing or that get_meeting_summary should be used if only fetching is needed.

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

• list_meeting_summariesA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It clearly conveys a read-only listing operation via 'List', but doesn't discuss response format, pagination, or potential side effects. This is adequate but not rich.

  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?

  Two short sentences that front-load the core function and then add filter options. No wasted words; perfectly 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?

  For a simple list tool with optional filters, the description covers the essential behavior. Since there is no output schema, the implied return of summaries is sufficient, though mentioning the return format would make it fully complete.

  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%, so the schema already explains each parameter. The description's mention of 'date range' and 'source' adds no additional semantics beyond restating 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 uses a specific verb and resource ('List Zoom meeting summaries') and clearly indicates the optional filters. It distinguishes from siblings like get_meeting_summary and write_summary_to_obsidian by focusing on listing.

  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 when to use the tool (when you need to list summaries) and provides filter options. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear. A 5 would require explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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

• write_all_summaries_to_obsidianA
  4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that meetings without a matching file are skipped, duplicates are skipped, and shared meetings are never deleted from Zoom. However, it doesn't clarify whether existing Obsidian notes are overwritten or appended, nor what happens to owned meetings, leaving some side effects undisclosed.

  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?

  Two sentences with no waste; the first gives the main action, the second adds key exclusions. Efficient and front-loaded.

  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 tool has no output schema, so return behavior is not disclosed, but the description covers the core behavior and edge cases. It could mention how notes are matched or the effect of date filters, so it's not fully complete, but it's adequate for a bulk operation.

  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?

  Both parameters have complete descriptions in the schema (coverage 100%), so the baseline is 3. The description doesn't add any extra meaning to the date filters; it just mentions 'every' which could conflict with the existence of filters. Thus, no additional value beyond 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 the tool fetches every Zoom meeting summary and writes each to a matching Obsidian note, with explicit skips. It distinguishes from sibling write_summary_to_obsidian by emphasizing bulk 'every' and from list_meeting_summaries by including the write action.

  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 bulk use ('every') but doesn't explicitly state when to use this instead of write_summary_to_obsidian or when to avoid it. No alternatives or exclusions provided. Usage is implied rather than explicit.

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

• zoom_loginA
  4.7/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key side effects: opens a browser window and saves session cookies for reuse. However, it does not mention user interaction requirements or whether the window closes automatically, which would add completeness.

  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?

  Two short sentences with no wasted words. The key information is front-loaded: what it does, when to use, and the cookie-saving behavior.

  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 simple, parameterless login tool, the description covers the action, the trigger condition, and the persistence effect. No output schema is needed, and the tool is fully specified.

  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 the schema coverage is 100% (empty). The description adds no parameter details, but none are needed. Baseline for 0 params is 4.

  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: 'Open a browser window to log into Zoom.' This is a specific verb and resource, and it is distinct from sibling tools that focus on meeting summaries and Obsidian writing.

  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?

  Explicitly instructs when to use: 'Call this first if you get authentication errors.' This provides a clear trigger condition and implies precedence over other tools, even without naming alternatives.

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