Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• read_existing_rulesB
  3.1/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  无注解，描述仅说明读取行为，未披露是否只读、权限要求、错误处理等关键行为特征，透明性不足。

  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?

  描述简短，先说明核心功能，后附参数和返回说明，结构清晰，无冗余。

  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?

  缺少输出模式，未详细说明返回内容的结构；无注解支持，描述过于简单，对于安全使用信息不足。

  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?

  参数rules_path在描述中解释了含义和默认值，弥补了schema无描述的问题，但未说明路径相对关系或格式限制。

  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?

  明确说明工具功能：'读取现有的规则文件内容'，动词+资源清晰，且与兄弟工具（generate_project_rules, save_rules_file, update_existing_rules）明显区分。

  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?

  未提供任何使用场景或替代工具的指导，没有说明何时使用或避免使用该工具，缺少上下文。

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

• generate_project_rulesB
  3.3/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description must convey behavior. It explains that the tool generates rules and returns content, but it doesn't disclose side effects (e.g., file creation) or limitations. It is adequate but not comprehensive.

  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 with an Args/Returns structure, making it easy to scan. However, the format is slightly non-standard for MCP descriptions, and each sentence is earned.

  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 tool with 3 parameters and an output schema, the description covers the main function and parameters. Missing guidance on usage context and return format explanations (though output schema exists) leaves 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?

  The description adds meaning beyond the schema by providing examples for project_type and features (e.g., 'web', 'mobile') and noting language defaults. Given 0% schema description coverage, this is valuable, though it lacks full constraints.

  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 that the tool generates new project rules based on project type and features. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like update_existing_rules or read_existing_rules, which weakens clarity.

  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?

  No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as save_rules_file or update_existing_rules. The description only states its purpose without exclusions or context.

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

• save_rules_fileB
  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 should compensate. It mentions saving a file with defaults but does not disclose key behaviors like overwrite policy, directory creation, or error handling. The return description is vague ('保存操作的结果信息').

  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, using a brief title and structured 'Args' and 'Returns' sections. It avoids unnecessary words, though the structure could be slightly improved with bullet points for readability.

  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 the tool has 3 parameters, an output schema, and siblings, the description covers basic purpose but lacks behavioral details (e.g., overwriting) and usage guidance. It is adequate but incomplete for an agent to fully understand implications.

  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 has no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), but the tool description's 'Args' section provides clear explanations for each parameter: 'content' (file content), 'filename' (with default), 'rules_path' (with default). This adds meaningful 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 clearly states the action '保存' (save) and the resource '规则文件' (rules file) to a specified directory. It is distinguishable from siblings 'generate_project_rules' (creation) and 'read_existing_rules' (reading).

  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 the siblings, such as 'generate_project_rules' or 'update_existing_rules'. It lacks context on prerequisites or scenarios.

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

• update_existing_rulesA
  3.6/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It describes the updates parameter with specific keys (append, replace, insert) and indicates mutation. However, it omits error handling, permission requirements, atomicity, and what happens if the file does not exist. Returns are mentioned but not detailed. Adequate but incomplete.

  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 with a clear 'Args' and 'Returns' structure. Front-loaded with the purpose. Could be slightly more compact by omitting the Returns line since output schema exists, but it is generally well-organized.

  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 the complexity (nested object, no schema description) and missing output schema content, the description provides key details but lacks usage context, error scenarios, and precise behavior of the updates parameter (e.g., combining multiple keys). The absence of guidelines and limited operational context makes it incomplete for seamless agent invocation.

  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 description coverage is 0%, so the description compensates by explaining the structure of the updates parameter with three supported operations. It also clarifies file_path. This adds significant meaning beyond the raw schema. However, the description could define allowed keys more precisely and note that additional properties might be accepted.

  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: 'update existing rules file content' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by implying modification rather than creation (generate_project_rules), reading (read_existing_rules), or saving (save_rules_file).

  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?

  No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of prerequisites, conditions for update, or when not to use. The description assumes the agent knows context but offers no explicit direction.

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