Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• execute_sqlB
  3.1/5.0
  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. It discloses that the query is read-only, which is a key behavioral trait, but doesn't cover other aspects like permissions needed, rate limits, error handling, or what 'return results' entails (e.g., format, pagination). For a tool with no annotations, 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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads key information (execute, read-only, return results) with zero waste. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

  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's complexity (SQL execution with 2 parameters), no annotations, and an output schema present, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and read-only nature, but lacks details on parameter usage, behavioral constraints, or integration with siblings. The output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but more context would be helpful for safe and effective use.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters2/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'SQL query' which relates to the 'query' parameter, but doesn't explain the 'database' parameter or provide any additional semantic context beyond what's inferred from parameter names. With 2 parameters and no schema descriptions, the description adds minimal value over the bare schema.

  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 verb ('execute') and resource ('SQL query'), specifying it's read-only and returns results. It distinguishes from potential siblings like 'get_table_schema' or 'list_tables' by focusing on query execution rather than metadata retrieval. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings (e.g., 'reload_config' is unrelated).

  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 usage for executing SQL queries, particularly read-only ones, but doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'list_tables' for metadata or specify prerequisites. It mentions 'read-only' which hints at when not to use it for write operations, but lacks detailed alternatives or exclusions.

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

• get_table_schemaB
  3.1/5.0
  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 states the action ('Get') but doesn't describe traits like whether it's read-only, requires permissions, returns error handling for non-existent tables, or details about the output format. The description is minimal and misses key behavioral context needed for safe and effective use.

  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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and appropriately sized for a simple tool, avoiding unnecessary elaboration. Every word earns its place, making it easy to parse quickly.

  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's low complexity (2 parameters, 1 required) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is somewhat complete but lacks depth. It covers the basic purpose but misses behavioral details and parameter guidance. With no annotations, it should do more to compensate, making it minimally adequate but with clear gaps.

  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 0%, so the schema provides no parameter details. The description mentions 'a specific table' which hints at the table_name parameter but doesn't explain the optional database parameter or provide any syntax, format, or constraints. It adds minimal value beyond the schema, compensating slightly but inadequately for the coverage gap.

  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 verb ('Get') and resource ('schema/structure of a specific table'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like list_tables (which lists tables) and execute_sql (which runs queries), though it doesn't explicitly name these alternatives. The purpose is specific but could be slightly more precise about what 'schema/structure' entails.

  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 prerequisites (e.g., needing to know the table name first), exclusions, or compare it to siblings like list_tables (for discovering tables) or execute_sql (for querying data). Usage is implied by the purpose but lacks explicit context.

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

• list_tablesB
  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 the tool does but lacks critical details: whether it's read-only, if it requires authentication, how it handles the optional database parameter, pagination behavior, or error conditions. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand operational traits.

  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, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and appropriately sized for a simple tool, making it highly efficient for an agent to parse.

  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's low complexity (one optional parameter) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and incomplete parameter guidance, it lacks depth on behavioral aspects, keeping it at a basic level of completeness.

  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 0%, but the description partially compensates by implying the 'database' parameter's role ('in a specific database'). However, it doesn't explain parameter behavior (e.g., what happens if null/default is used, format expectations, or if it lists all tables across databases). With one parameter and some added meaning, this meets the baseline.

  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 ('List') and resource ('tables in a specific database'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_databases' or 'get_table_schema', which prevents 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. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'list_databases' (for listing databases) or 'get_table_schema' (for detailed table info), nor does it specify prerequisites or context for usage.

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

• list_databasesB
  3.2/5.0
  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 the tool lists databases but doesn't describe what 'accessible' means (e.g., permission-based filtering), whether the list is paginated or sorted, or what happens if no databases are accessible. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's 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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without any wasted words. It directly answers 'what does this tool do?' in a clear and structured manner, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

  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's simplicity (0 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It states the action and resource but lacks details on behavioral aspects like permissions or output format. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but more context on accessibility would improve completeness.

  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, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, which is correct for this case. A baseline of 4 is applied since no parameter information is needed or expected.

  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 action ('List') and resource ('all accessible databases in the MariaDB server'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_tables' or 'get_table_schema', which would require mentioning it operates at the database level rather than table or schema level.

  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 'list_tables' or 'execute_sql'. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing database access) or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the tool name alone.

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

• reload_configB
  3.2/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states the action ('Reload') but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it's safe, idempotent, requires permissions, or what happens on failure. It only mentions the sources, leaving key operational details unclear.

  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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and specifies sources clearly, making it highly concise and well-structured.

  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 no parameters, annotations, or output schema (context signals indicate has_output_schema: true, but it's not provided here), the description is minimally adequate. It explains what the tool does but lacks details on behavior, output, or integration context, leaving gaps in completeness.

  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 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter information is needed. The description doesn't add param semantics, but with no params, a baseline of 4 is appropriate as it doesn't need to compensate for 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 action ('Reload') and the resource ('configuration'), specifying the sources ('from environment variables and .env file'). It's specific but doesn't differentiate from siblings since no sibling tools handle configuration reloading, making a 5 inappropriate.

  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 or in what context it should be invoked. The description implies it's for reloading config, but lacks explicit usage scenarios or prerequisites.

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