Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• list_stylesB
  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 carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It's a read-only listing operation, but the description doesn't state whether it performs a safe read, whether it requires network access, returns cached data, or what the output format looks like. For a zero-parameter tool, some behavioral context would be valuable.

  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?

  A single concise sentence that conveys the full purpose. Zero wasted words, no redundancy with the name, and appropriately brief for a simple, parameterless 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?

  The tool is simple (no parameters, no output schema, no annotations), so the completeness bar is relatively low. However, the description could benefit from noting what kind of output this returns (e.g., a list of style names with color values) since there's no output schema to clarify the return format. For a list tool, the response shape matters for downstream use.

  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 there's nothing for the description to add beyond schema. The baseline of 4 applies for a tool with no parameters. The description appropriately doesn't waste space on parameter details that don't exist.

  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 lists all available style types and their colors. The verb 'List' plus the resource 'style types' gives a clear purpose. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from the sibling 'convert' tool, but the action is specific enough that confusion is unlikely given they perform different operations.

  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 this is a discovery/enumeration tool used to see available style types, which would logically precede a conversion action. However, there's no explicit statement of when to use it vs alternatives, nor any mention of when it would be relevant (e.g., before using 'convert').

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

• convertA
  4.1/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool performs conversion, supports specific diagram types, supports explicit styling directives, and that outputPath affects response size/token weight. This covers key behavioral expectations reasonably well for a conversion tool, though it doesn't specify failure modes or unsupported Mermaid features.

  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 reasonably concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. It lists supported types and style categories efficiently. The style list is slightly long but necessary for an agent to know valid values. No wasted sentences, though the style list could arguably be trimmed or referenced to the sibling tool.

  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 2-parameter tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the key aspects: supported diagram types, styling mechanism, style taxonomy, and outputPath guidance. It doesn't explain return format or failure behavior, but the tool is relatively simple. The description is complete enough for an 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?

  Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters have adequate schema documentation. The description adds value by explaining the styling directive format and providing an example (%{excali: styles: {A: db, B: api}}%). Since the schema already covers parameter meaning well, baseline 3 is appropriate per the rubric.

  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 verb (convert), the resource (Mermaid diagram → Excalidraw file in Obsidian format), and explicitly lists supported diagram types (flowcharts, sequence, ER). It distinguishes itself from the sibling list_styles tool by having an entirely different purpose (conversion vs. listing).

  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 explains when to use explicit styling via the %%{excali}%% directive and what style types are available. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or name alternatives beyond the implied sibling. It gives clear context on optional outputPath usage for practical reasons (avoiding large token-heavy responses), which is useful guidance.

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