Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• browser_evalB
  3.3/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool doesn't drive the browser but points to an external CLI. Lacks details on installation requirements, potential side effects, or system permissions needed, which is a gap for a setup tool.

  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 three sentences plus an additional paragraph. It is relatively concise but could be more structured (e.g., separate usage from behavior). No wasted words, but the middle sentence about what it doesn't do could be integrated.

  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 purpose and usage context but omits parameter details and doesn't explain output or return values. For a simple tool with one optional param and no output schema, the missing parameter guidance is a notable gap.

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

  Parameters1/5

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

  The input schema has one optional string parameter 'task' with 0% schema description coverage. The description does not explain what 'task' is, how to use it, or what values are expected, leaving the agent with no guidance beyond the 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 it sets up browser automation via agent-browser CLI. It distinguishes from sibling tools (nextjs_*) which are not browser-related. However, it includes a negative statement ('does NOT drive the browser itself') that adds clarity but also could be confusing.

  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?

  Explicit usage condition: 'Call this when you need to open pages, click, type, screenshot, or capture console errors in a real browser.' It also notes that direct CLI usage is faster than MCP. No explicit when-not-to or alternatives, but the context is clear.

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

• nextjs_docsA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It clearly states the tool does not fetch documentation but locates it, explains where docs are stored, and mentions upgrade guidance. This gives good transparency, though it could explicitly state it's read-only with no side effects.

  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 a clear first sentence stating purpose, then clarifying behavior, then usage guidance. It is concise with no filler, though it could be slightly tightened without losing clarity.

  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 main purpose and usage but lacks details on output format (what exactly is returned, e.g., a path, a list) and error handling. Since no output schema exists, the description should provide more specifics on the return value.

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

  Parameters2/5

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

  The input schema has two undocumented parameters (topic, project_path), and schema description coverage is 0%. The description barely adds meaning: topic is implied by 'version-accurate documentation' and project_path by 'this project,' but no explicit format or constraints are given.

  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: 'Find the version-accurate Next.js documentation for THIS project.' It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying it deals with documentation, not execution or indexing, and explicitly says it does not fetch docs.

  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 explicit usage guidance: 'Call this before answering Next.js questions or writing Next.js code.' It also explains subsequent steps and upgrade handling. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternative tools or contrast with siblings.

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

• nextjs_callA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. However, the description focuses on usage instructions (how to call) rather than behavioral traits like idempotency, side effects, or error handling. It does not reveal what happens when a tool fails or whether it is read-only. This leaves gaps in transparency.

  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 headers (REQUIREMENTS, IMPORTANT, Common tools, Example usage) and front-loads the core purpose. It is slightly verbose due to the list of common tools and repeated examples, but every sentence adds value. A minor trim could improve conciseness.

  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?

  Given 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers prerequisites (port, toolName, args), how to discover tools, and parameter formatting. It lacks details on output format or error responses, but for a tool that delegates to other tools, this is acceptable. Overall, it is nearly complete.

  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?

  Schema coverage is 67%, with the 'args' parameter lacking a description in schema. The description compensates by explaining that 'args' must be an object (not a string) and should be omitted if not needed. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema, though some parameter details (like type constraints for port) are already clear from 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's verb 'call' and resource 'MCP tool on a Next.js dev server'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'nextjs_index' by specifying that this tool executes a call rather than discovering tools. The purpose 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 Guidelines5/5

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

  The description provides explicit when-to-use guidance: requires a port, tool name, and optional args; instructs to use 'nextjs_index' first for discovery. It includes important notes on args formatting and example usage. This fully informs the agent on correct invocation.

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

• nextjs_indexA
  4.6/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations, so description carries full burden. It discloses discovery behavior, requirements (Next.js 16+), fallback with port parameter, and what returns. Lacks specifics on error handling or latency but overall transparent.

  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?

  Well-structured with headings, numbered lists, and bold for key points. Some slight redundancy, but each section earns its place. Content is appropriate for the tool's complexity.

  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 no output schema, the description fully explains return values (port, PID, URL, MCP tools list). Also covers prerequisites, fallback procedures, and next steps. Complete for this tool.

  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?

  Schema has one optional parameter 'port' with no description. The description adds meaning by explaining its use as a fallback when auto-discovery fails, and instructs to ask user for port. Compensates for 0% schema coverage well.

  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 discovers running Next.js servers and lists their MCP tools. It distinguishes from sibling nextjs_call by setting up a workflow for execution, and from nextjs_docs which is likely documentation.

  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?

  Provides explicit scenarios for when to use: before implementing changes, for diagnostic questions, and as first choice for agentic codebase search. Includes fallback instructions and when to use nextjs_call, offering clear decision guidance.

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