Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• describe_tableA
  3.6/5.0
  Behavior3/5

  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 states that the tool 'return[s]' information, implying a read-only operation, but it does not describe edge cases (e.g., nonexistent table), error behavior, or the optional database context. This is adequate for a simple tool 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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently communicates the core function and return fields.

  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, and an output schema exists, so return format is covered. However, the description omits the database parameter and does not differentiate the tool from execute_query for schema exploration. This leaves some context gaps.

  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?

  Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It only mentions 'a table' implicitly referring to the table parameter, but does not describe the database parameter at all, nor does it clarify whether the table name is per database or fully qualified. This is a notable gap.

  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: 'Return column information (name, type, null, key, default, extra) for a table.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from siblings like list_databases and list_tables, which operate at a different level.

  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 usage is implied by the description: you would use this tool when you need column metadata for a table. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use it instead of alternatives like execute_query, nor any mention of the optional database parameter or prerequisites.

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

• execute_queryA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the read-only default and the required MYSQL_ALLOW_WRITE=true and WHERE clause for write operations, which is valuable context beyond the schema. However, it does not mention pagination, limits, or error 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and followed by an important caveat. No wasted words; every sentence delivers actionable information.

  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 has an output schema, so return values are likely covered, but the description omits the database parameter's purpose and does not reference sibling alternatives. The read-only and write-restriction details are helpful, but the missing param semantics leave a notable gap.

  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?

  Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It indirectly explains the query parameter as a SQL query but does not describe the database parameter at all. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema's bare property definitions.

  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 executes SQL queries, specifically read-only ones like SELECT, SHOW, and DESCRIBE. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that handle specific tasks like listing databases or tables.

  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 for arbitrary read-only SQL queries and mentions write operations under specific conditions, but it does not explicitly compare with sibling tools or state when to prefer this tool over list_databases, list_tables, or describe_table. Context is present, but exclusions are not.

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

• list_tablesA
  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 full burden. It discloses the fallback behavior for an empty database parameter, which is useful. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or mention any side effects. Since an output schema exists, return format details are likely covered elsewhere, but the description could add more 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 concise, consisting of two sentences that are front-loaded with the main action. Every word contributes to the meaning, with no redundancy or filler.

  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 operation with one optional parameter and an existing output schema, the description is nearly complete. It covers the primary purpose and an edge case (empty database). The only gap is the lack of explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over its siblings, but this is minor given the tool's simplicity.

  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 input schema provides only a default value for the database parameter without any description. The description clarifies that an empty value triggers the default configured database, adding meaningful semantics beyond the schema. With one parameter and 0% schema description coverage, this compensation is effective, though it could be slightly more explicit about accepting a database name.

  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 with a specific verb and resource: 'List tables in a database.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_databases, describe_table, and execute_query by focusing on the enumeration of tables.

  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 provides some usage context by explaining the behavior when the database parameter is empty (defaults to the configured database), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_databases or describe_table. The usage is implied by the purpose, but no exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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

• list_databasesA
  4.1/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. The verb 'List' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly mention safety, side effects, or whether system databases are included. It adds minimal behavioral context beyond the tool's name.

  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 concise sentence ('List all databases on the MySQL server.') that is front-loaded with the action and resource, containing no wasted words.

  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 low complexity (0 parameters), an output schema (so return values need not be described), and clear scope, the description is fully adequate. It is complete for its intended purpose without needing extra detail.

  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?

  There are 0 parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (empty schema). The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description has no additional parameter semantics to explain.

  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 'List' with a clear resource 'all databases on the MySQL server'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_tables (which lists tables) and describe_table (which describes a table).

  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 for retrieving an overview of all databases but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. No exclusions or alternative tool references are mentioned, so the guidance is only implicit from the tool name and description.

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