Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• rls_coverageA
  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 for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool is 'quick' and produces a 'per-table yes/no' result, but does not describe error handling, whether the SQL is executed or parsed statically, or how it treats invalid or complex SQL. This is minimal but not misleading.

  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 that front-loads the core purpose. Every word contributes value, 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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers the high-level behavior and output shape. It lacks details like return format specifics (e.g., list vs. map) but infers that from 'per-table yes/no.' The tool's simplicity makes the description reasonably complete.

  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 sole parameter 'sql' is fully described in the input schema (100% coverage), so the description's reference to 'given SQL' adds no new meaning. The schema already explains the parameter as 'The SQL schema / migration text.' The description does not need to compensate for missing parameter info.

  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: providing a per-table yes/no answer on whether Row-Level Security is enabled in the given SQL. It is specific to the resource (SQL text) and uniquely identifies the tool's output, distinguishing it from siblings like a general SQL audit or rule listing.

  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 offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites, limitations, or whether it works on arbitrary SQL or only migration scripts. Usage context is only implicitly inferable from the tool's name and purpose.

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

• audit_sqlA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the audit is static (implying no side effects) and returns a summary plus ranked findings. It does not explicitly state non-destructiveness or permissions, but 'statically' plus the nature of the tool provides adequate transparency for a read-only analysis.

  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 front-loaded. The first sentence states the action and target, lists the key checks, and the second sentence describes the output. No redundant information 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?

  Despite lacking annotations and an output schema, the description covers the core inputs, the scope of analysis, and the return type (summary + ranked findings). It does not detail the ranking methodology or output structure, but for a single-parameter static analysis tool, it is sufficiently complete.

  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 already provides 100% coverage of the single `sql` parameter with a clear description ('The SQL schema / migration text to audit.'). The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

  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 ('statically audit') and resource ('Postgres/Supabase SQL'), and enumerates concrete security issues it detects (missing RLS, permissive policies, broad grants, SECURITY DEFINER gaps, sensitive columns). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like rls_coverage, which likely focuses narrowly on RLS coverage.

  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 clearly implies when to use the tool: when you need a static security audit of SQL schema. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the scope is clear enough that an agent could infer this is the broad audit tool, while siblings like rls_coverage or list_rules serve narrower purposes.

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

• list_rulesA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior4/5

  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 accurately portrays a non-mutating enumeration operation through the verb 'enumerate' and by describing the output fields, though it never explicitly states that no checks are executed.

  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, well-structured sentence with no redundant words. It front-loads the action ('Enumerate') and includes essential output details without extraneous 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 zero-parameter list tool, the description is complete: it states the purpose and the information returned. Although there is no output schema, the description compensates by listing the output fields. No further context is needed for correct 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?

  The tool has zero parameters, so the empty schema makes parameter semantics trivial. The baseline is 4, and the description correctly focuses on the output rather than 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 uses a specific verb ('enumerate') and clearly identifies the resource ('security checks Schema Guard runs'). It also lists the output fields (id, severity, rationale), which differentiates it from siblings like audit_sql and rls_coverage.

  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 conveys what the tool does but does not explicitly mention when to use it over sibling tools. There is no guidance on alternatives or exclusions; usage is implied from the tool's purpose, but not stated.

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