Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• describe_tableA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, how errors are handled (e.g., missing table), or what the output format looks like beyond mentioning the parameter constraint. The only behavioral hint is the parameter naming rule, which is more about parameter semantics.

  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 exceptionally concise: two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by a parameter detail. No filler or redundant wording. Every sentence earns its place.

  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 single-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the essentials: purpose and parameter constraint. The output schema handles return values, so the description need not explain them. Missing usage guidelines and behavioral specifics are noted in other dimensions, but for its simplicity, the description is largely complete.

  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 schema has 0% description coverage, but the description compensates with a clear explanation of the 'table' parameter: 'Unquoted table name (letters, digits, underscore)'. This adds meaningful syntax details beyond the schema's generic title 'Table', helping the agent invoke the tool correctly. However, it could be more explicit about why quoting matters or provide an example.

  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: 'Describe columns for one table in the bound database.' The verb 'describe' plus the resource 'columns for one table' and scope 'bound database' is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_tables (lists tables) and mysql_query (runs queries).

  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 is used when you need column information for a specific table, but it does not explicitly mention when to use it versus alternatives or provide any exclusions. 'Describe columns for one table' gives context but no direct guidance on choosing this over list_tables or mysql_query.

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

• list_tablesA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key behavior—returns only table names, no row data—and clarifies the scope ('bound database'). This is adequate for a simple listing tool, though it omits details like ordering or inclusion of views.

  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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a clarifying scope note. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

  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 zero-parameter tool with an output schema available, the description sufficiently covers the essential behaviors: what it does, the scope (bound database), and what it returns (names only). No further detail is necessary.

  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 zero parameters, so the schema coverage is trivially 100%. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description adds no parameter information, which is appropriate since there are none to describe.

  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: 'List tables in the bound database.' It specifies the verb (List) and resource (tables), and distinguishes itself from siblings by clarifying it returns only table names, not schema details or row data.

  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: it is for schema browsing and explicitly notes 'no row data,' implying row queries should go to mysql_query. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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

• mysql_queryA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states the operation is read-only, lists allowed statements, and discloses row cap and truncation behavior. This adds significant context beyond the basic action.

  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 and well-structured: a clear one-sentence purpose, a succinct 'Allowed' list, a note on row caps, and an args list. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

  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?

  With an output schema present, the description covers the tool's purpose, allowed operations, row-cap behavior, and parameter semantics. Minor gaps include no mention of error handling or interaction with sibling tools, but these are not essential given the overall clarity.

  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 input schema has zero description coverage, but the description fully compensates by defining sql as 'A single read-only SQL statement' and limit as 'Max rows to return (default 100, max 1000)', adding clarity, constraints, and defaults for both 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 opens with 'Run one read-only SQL statement against the bound database', providing a specific verb, resource, and scope. It lists allowed statement types and is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like list_tables and describe_table, which focus on schema introspection.

  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 states when to use the tool by listing allowed statement types (SELECT, SHOW, DESCRIBE, EXPLAIN) and noting result caps. It does not explicitly reference sibling tools or exclusion cases, but the context is clear enough for an agent to decide.

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