Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• list_componentsA
  3.6/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the core function without revealing traits such as read-only behavior, return format, pagination, or error handling. The word 'List' implies safety but does not explicitly confirm it, leaving significant gaps for a tool with no annotation-driven visibility.

  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, front-loaded sentence that directly states the purpose and optional filter. There is no wasted wording or redundant elaboration, making it highly concise and appropriately structured.

  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?

  The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description should explain return values or additional context, but it does not. It also omits details like whether the list is paginated, sorted, or includes metadata. Despite the tool's simplicity, the missing return/error information leaves it incomplete.

  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 coverage for the single 'category' parameter is 100%, and the parameter description already explains it with examples. The tool description only restates that filtering is optional, adding no new semantics like matching behavior or invalid-category handling, so it meets the baseline but does not elevate it.

  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 lists all available Aceternity UI components, with an optional category filter. The verb 'List' and resource 'Aceternity UI components' are specific, and it distinguishes from siblings like get_component (single item) and search_components (query-based) by indicating 'all' components.

  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 implies usage for browsing all components or filtering by category, which provides a clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention when to avoid this tool in favor of siblings like get_component or search_components, so it misses explicit exclusions or alternative guidance.

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

• get_componentA
  3.7/5.0
  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 only says 'detailed information' without specifying what that includes, nor does it mention output format, errors, permissions, or side effects. The tool is likely a read operation, but this is not disclosed.

  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 is front-loaded with the action ('Get detailed information') and the target ('specific Aceternity UI component'). No wasted words.

  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 one-parameter tool, the description is adequate but vague about what 'detailed information' includes, especially since there is no output schema. The lack of guidance on alternatives and return structure leaves gaps, but the simplicity makes it minimally viable.

  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 fully documents the single parameter with a description and example, achieving 100% coverage. The description itself adds minimal semantic value beyond restating 'by its slug'; the schema does the heavy lifting.

  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 fetches detailed information about a specific component identified by slug. This distinguishes it from siblings like list_components (which likely returns all) and search_components (which likely finds matching components).

  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 implies usage when you have a specific slug and need detailed data, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, such as 'use search_components to find a component first.'

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

• search_componentsA
  3.7/5.0
  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 only states searchable fields and does not disclose return format (list vs. single), matching behavior (e.g., partial vs. exact), pagination, or result limits. This is a significant gap for a search tool.

  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 one concise sentence, front-loaded with the action verb and resource. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff.

  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 simple one-parameter search tool, the description provides adequate purpose, but it lacks return value details and does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools. The absence of an output schema and behavioral context leaves the agent uncertain about what the search will produce, making it only minimally 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?

  Schema description coverage is 100%: the single required parameter 'query' already has a description with examples. The tool description reinforces that search is by name/description/tags, but adds no new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

  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 ('Search'), identifies the resource ('Aceternity UI components'), and specifies search criteria ('by name, description, or tags'). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tools get_component (which likely retrieves a single component) and list_components (which likely lists all components).

  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 use when searching for components by name/description/tags, which gives clear context. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives (e.g., 'use get_component if you know the ID') or mention sibling tools, so it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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