Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• convert_file_encodingC
  2.9/5.0
  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 mentions 'automatic backup support,' which adds some context about safety features, but fails to describe critical behaviors such as whether the conversion is destructive (overwrites the original file), what happens on errors, or any rate limits or permissions required. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's operation.

  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 very concise with two short sentences that efficiently convey the core functionality and a key feature. It is front-loaded with the main purpose, and every sentence adds value without redundancy. A slight improvement could be made by integrating usage context, but it's well-structured and to the point.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness2/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the tool's complexity (file conversion with potential data loss), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain return values, error handling, or the implications of encoding changes, which are critical for safe usage. The description should provide more context to compensate for the missing structured data.

  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 input schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by implying the tool handles file encoding conversion and backup, but it doesn't provide additional semantic context (e.g., how encodings affect file content or backup details). This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

  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 the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('convert') and resource ('file'), specifying the action of changing file encoding. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_empty_file' or 'detect_file_encoding' by focusing on conversion rather than creation or detection. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings (e.g., 'get_system_info'), keeping it from a perfect score.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

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

  The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'detect_file_encoding' or other encoding-related operations. It mentions 'automatic backup support' as a feature but doesn't specify scenarios where this tool is preferred or when it should be avoided, leaving usage context implied at best.

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

• detect_file_encodingC
  2.9/5.0
  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 mentions 'professional libraries' which hints at reliability but lacks critical details such as whether this is a read-only operation, potential performance impacts, error handling for inaccessible files, or the format of detection results (e.g., encoding name, confidence score).

  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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized for a straightforward detection tool, though it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness2/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the tool's moderate complexity (detecting encoding with parameters) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., encoding type, error messages), behavioral aspects like file access permissions, or how it interacts with sibling tools, leaving gaps for an AI agent to use it effectively.

  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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema fully documents all three parameters (file_name, directory_path, max_bytes) with descriptions, types, and constraints. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

  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 the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('detect') and resource ('file encoding'), and mentions the use of 'professional libraries' which adds technical context. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'convert_file_encoding' which might also involve encoding operations.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

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

  The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when detection is needed (e.g., before conversion, for debugging) or contrast it with siblings like 'convert_file_encoding' for encoding changes or 'get_system_info' for broader system checks.

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

• get_system_infoB
  3.1/5.0
  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 states what information the tool provides but doesn't describe important behavioral aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, whether it requires authentication, what format the information is returned in, or any limitations. The description is purely functional without 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.

  Conciseness4/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is appropriately concise with two sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and what information it provides. It's front-loaded with the main purpose and follows with specific details. There's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration for this simple informational tool.

  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?

  Given this is a simple informational tool with 0 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides adequate but minimal coverage. It tells what the tool does but doesn't address format of returned information or any behavioral constraints. For a zero-parameter read operation, this is minimally viable but lacks completeness about what the agent should expect in return.

  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 with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the parameter situation. The description appropriately doesn't mention parameters since none exist, which is correct for a zero-parameter tool. Baseline for this situation would be 4 since the description doesn't need to compensate for any parameter documentation gaps.

  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 the tool's purpose: 'Check Encoding MCP system information' with specific details about what information is shown ('available libraries and supported encodings'). It uses a clear verb ('Check') and identifies the resource ('system information'), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'detect_file_encoding' which serves a different purpose.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

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

  The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it's clear this tool shows system information rather than performing file operations like the sibling tools, there's no explicit mention of when this tool should be selected over other options or what context would make it appropriate.

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

• create_empty_fileA
  3.7/5.0
  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. While it states the tool creates an empty file, it doesn't mention important behavioral aspects like whether it overwrites existing files, what permissions are required, error conditions, or what happens on success. For a file creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its 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 extremely concise with just two sentences that each earn their place. The first sentence states the core functionality, and the second clarifies the purpose and scope. There's zero wasted language, and the information is front-loaded effectively.

  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 file creation tool with 3 parameters, 100% schema coverage, but no annotations and no output schema, the description provides basic purpose but lacks important behavioral context. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error conditions, or file system implications. The description is adequate but has clear gaps given the tool's complexity and lack of supporting structured data.

  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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents all three parameters. The description mentions 'specified encoding' which aligns with the encoding parameter in the schema, but doesn't add meaningful semantic context beyond what the schema provides. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

  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 specific action ('Create an empty file') and resource ('file'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like convert_file_encoding or detect_file_encoding. It explicitly mentions the purpose is to create an empty file for the agent to fill in content later, which is distinct from file manipulation or analysis tools.

  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 clear context for when to use this tool ('Creates only an empty file so Agent can fill in content'), indicating it's for initial file creation rather than modification. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools, which prevents a perfect score.

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