Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• set_breakpointA
  4.6/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Discloses that breakpoints persist until session ends, path translation from local to container paths, and return values including warning if file doesn't exist. However, it doesn't explicitly mention any side effects or potential failures beyond file existence. No annotations provided, so description carries full burden.

  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 clear headings (WHEN TO USE, PATH FORMAT, CONDITIONAL BREAKPOINTS, RETURNS, AFTER SETTING). Each section is relevant and concise, though somewhat lengthy. First paragraph directly states purpose.

  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 complex tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is exceptionally thorough. Covers purpose, usage timing, path format, conditional expressions, return values, and next steps. Leaves no important gaps.

  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?

  Input schema covers all 3 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds significant value with path format examples, condition expression examples, and usage context (e.g., 'HIGHLY RECOMMENDED for loops'). Exceeds schema 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 'Sets a breakpoint at a specific file and line' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like start_debug_session by explaining when to use it (before or during debugging).

  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?

  Explicit WHEN TO USE section: before start_debug_session for initial breakpoints or during a paused session. Also provides path format guidance and conditional breakpoint recommendations, and tells the agent to call start_debug_session after setting.

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

• start_debug_sessionA
  4.8/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries full burden and excels. It details the internal process (listening on port 9003, executing command, waiting 30s timeout, pausing at breakpoints), limitations (single session, single port), and common errors (SESSION_ALREADY_ACTIVE, timeout). This fully discloses behavioral traits.

  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 fairly long but well-structured with clear sections (WORKFLOW, BEFORE CALLING, XDEBUG TRIGGERING, HOW IT WORKS, etc.). Every section provides necessary context. It could potentially be slightly shorter, but the structure justifies the length.

  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, no output schema), the description is remarkably complete. It covers preconditions, workflow, triggering mechanics, limitations, common errors, and parameter details. No gaps remain for an agent to use it 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?

  While schema coverage is 100%, the description adds significant meaning: it emphasizes adding ?XDEBUG_SESSION=1 in the command parameter, explains stop_on_entry and stop_on_exception usage, and notes working_directory defaults. This adds value 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 a clear verb-resource statement: 'Starts a new PHP debugging session by listening for XDebug connections and executing a trigger command.' It distinguishes from siblings like set_breakpoint and control_execution by outlining a workflow and stating its role in the sequence.

  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 explicitly states when to call this tool (after get_session_status and set_breakpoint), when not to (if a session is active, use control_execution stop first), and alternative actions. It also provides a numbered workflow and common errors, leaving no ambiguity.

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

• get_session_statusA
  4.9/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It fully discloses return fields (active, status, location, available_actions, breakpoints), session states, and recovery steps. No contradictions.

  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 clear sections (WHEN TO USE, RETURNS, SESSION STATES, STUCK SESSION RECOVERY). Every sentence adds value, and it is concise without being terse.

  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 of debug session status, the description is very complete. It includes all return fields, session states, and recovery instructions. No output schema exists, but the description compensates fully.

  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 0 parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4. The description adds value by explaining the output, though not required for 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 it returns the current debug session status and specifies it should be called first before starting a new session. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by being a read-only status check.

  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 'WHEN TO USE' section provides explicit contexts: before start_debug_session, during debugging, after errors. It also includes a 'STUCK SESSION RECOVERY' section with actionable steps, giving clear guidance on when and how to use the tool.

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

• query_historyA
  4.9/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  Despite no annotations, the description thoroughly explains behavior: it returns an array of historical values with step numbers and timestamps, can be used anytime during an active session, and discloses the key limitation that only variables inspected via inspect_variable are recorded.

  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 clear headers, bullet points, and an example. Every sentence contributes meaningful information without redundancy, and it is concise yet comprehensive.

  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 of time-travel debugging, no output schema, and full schema coverage, the description is complete: it explains the return format, usage context, limitations, and provides examples. No gaps remain.

  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%, so baseline is 3. However, the description adds value by explaining parameter semantics beyond the schema: it includes concrete examples (e.g., 'What was $user->status 3 steps ago?') and clarifies behavior (e.g., limit helps see progression). This justifies a 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 queries past variable values from a session recorder for time-travel debugging, with a specific verb ('query') and resource ('past variable values'). It is distinct from siblings like inspect_variable (current value) and control_execution (execution control).

  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?

  Explicit 'WHEN TO USE' section with three bullet points for appropriate contexts, plus a note that it does not require a paused state and a clear limitation about variable tracking, leaving no ambiguity about when to use or not use this tool.

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

• control_executionA
  5/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  With no annotations, the description fully bears the transparency burden. It explains the behavior of each action (e.g., step_over executes current line and pauses next, stop terminates session) and includes important notes like freeing ports after stop. This provides clear expectations of tool 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 well-structured with sections for ACTIONS (each with concise description, use case, example), REQUIRES, and AFTER STOP. Every sentence adds value, and the format is easy to scan. It is appropriately sized for the 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 there is no output schema and only one parameter, the description is complete. It covers all actions, prerequisites, and post-stop behavior. It also addresses potential errors implicitly by requiring paused state for stepping actions. No gaps are apparent.

  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 adds significant meaning beyond the input schema. While the schema describes each enum value, the description provides use cases and examples (e.g., 'Skip framework internals' for step_over, 'Debug why UserService::create() fails' for step_into), enriching parameter understanding.

  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 'Controls the debugger's execution flow. Use to step through code or end sessions.' It lists specific actions that distinguish it from sibling tools like start_debug_session, set_breakpoint, etc., making the tool's purpose 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 usage guidance for each action (e.g., 'Use when: Line calls a function you don't need to debug.' for step_over) and states prerequisites (session must be active, paused for stepping/continue). It also advises to always stop sessions to free ports, covering both when and how to use the tool effectively.

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

• inspect_variableA
  5/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  The description discloses behavioral traits such as returning structure only without a filter, the expensiveness of full dumps, use of JSONPath filtering, recursion depth limits, and the requirement for a paused session. No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden.

  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 clear section headers (WHEN TO USE, CONTEXT EFFICIENCY, JSONPATH EXAMPLES, REQUIRES, COMMON VARIABLES). It is front-loaded with the core purpose and each section provides relevant, non-redundant information.

  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 debugging tool with parameters for filtering and depth, and no output schema, the description is complete: covers prerequisites, usage guidelines, efficiency tips, examples, and common variable names.

  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 100%, but the description adds significant context: explains the filter parameter with JSONPath syntax and examples, depth with context cost implications, and name with common variable examples.

  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: 'Inspects a PHP variable's value at the current breakpoint.' It specifies the context (session paused) and distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on inspection.

  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 includes a 'WHEN TO USE' section specifying appropriate scenarios (after hitting a breakpoint, to examine values, to understand object structure) and a 'REQUIRES' condition (session paused) with a suggestion to verify via get_session_status.

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