Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• list_accessibility_articlesB
  3.4/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral details. It mentions 'get an overview', which hints at the output nature, but does not clarify whether the operation is read-only, paginated, or what exact fields (e.g., titles, links, content) are returned. This lacks sufficient behavioral transparency for an unannotated 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 concise at two sentences. The first sentence is specific and actionable, while the second largely restates the scope but adds little new information. It is not overly verbose, though the second sentence could be considered somewhat redundant.

  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 tool is simple, but the absence of an output schema places a burden on the description to explain the return value. The description offers a general idea of the content (overview of W3C WAI-ARIA patterns) but does not detail the response structure, such as whether it includes metadata, summaries, or links. This is adequate but leaves 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 only parameter, outputMode, is fully described in the schema with its enum values and default, so the schema already provides complete information. The description adds no extra parameter meaning, aligning with the baseline score 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 clearly states the tool's action ('List all available accessibility articles') and its resource ('e11y-mcp documentation repository'). It distinguishes itself from the sibling tools search_accessibility_articles and fetch_accessibility_article by emphasizing the comprehensive listing of all available content.

  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 the tool should be used when a complete overview of all accessibility articles is needed, given the word 'all'. However, it does not explicitly mention the alternative sibling tools or provide when-not-to-use guidance, so the usage context is only implied.

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

• search_accessibility_articlesA
  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 must carry the transparency burden. It discloses key behaviors like 'fuzzy matching and content search,' but it does not mention safety characteristics (e.g., read-only nature), rate limits, or output format. The description adds some value but lacks richer behavioral context.

  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, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no filler. Every phrase adds value—naming the repository, the topic, and the search behavior.

  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 the tool's moderate complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the essential context: what it searches, where it searches, and how matching works. It does not explain the exact return structure, but for a search tool the purpose and source are sufficiently clear to guide invocation.

  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% coverage for all four parameters, each with descriptions. The tool description reinforces 'fuzzy matching and content search' which aligns with the query and includeContent parameters, but it does not add new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema thoroughly documents parameters.

  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 function: 'Search for relevant web accessibility articles from the e11y-mcp documentation repository.' It also specifies the purpose ('Find W3C WAI-ARIA patterns and accessibility implementation guidance') and distinguishes from siblings like fetch and list by focusing on search with fuzzy matching and content search.

  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 context for when to use this tool (when searching for relevant articles with fuzzy matching and content search). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as when to use fetch_accessibility_article or list_accessibility_articles instead. This is a minor gap.

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

• fetch_accessibility_articleA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states the action is to 'fetch' (implying read-only) and that it returns 'full markdown documentation' (implying no truncation). However, it does not disclose details about error behavior, response structure, or any side effects. For a simple read operation, this is adequate but lacks depth.

  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, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value. It is concise, avoid redundancy, and provides both the action and a key usage hint in a compact format.

  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 3 params (all documented), no output schema, and no annotations. The description gives the essential context: the source repository, the need for a path from search, and the nature of the return (full markdown). It does not explicitly describe the response envelope, but this is acceptable for a straightforward fetch operation.

  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 100% with well-described parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by noting the 'path' should come from search results and that the content is 'full markdown documentation,' which contextualizes the parameters without repeating schema 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?

  The description clearly states the tool fetches the complete content of a specific accessibility article from a named repository. It uses specific verb+resource ('Fetch...article') and implies a distinction from siblings by focusing on retrieving full markdown documentation for an already-known path, rather than searching or 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?

  It provides clear usage context by instructing to use the path from search results, which implies a workflow via search_accessibility_articles. While it does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, the reference to search results gives a practical prerequisite and distinguishes it from sibling tools.

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