Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• list_tablesA
  3.5/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It implies a read-only, non-destructive operation but does not disclose any potential side effects, authentication requirements, or error conditions. The description is minimal but adequate for a simple list operation.

  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 directly states the tool's purpose with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and efficient.

  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 absence of an output schema and annotations, the description lacks information about return values or format. It is adequate for a simple listing tool but could be more complete by mentioning the output (e.g., list of table names).

  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 coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'database', and the description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema description. Baseline score 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 clearly states the specific action (list all tables) and resource (tables in a database). It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_databases (lists databases) and describe_table (describes a specific table).

  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. Sibling tools exist (describe_table, list_databases, read_query, write_query) but no criteria for selection are mentioned.

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

• list_databasesA
  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 must carry full behavioral burden. It only states that databases are 'accessible' but does not disclose potential side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or performance implications. The read-only nature is implied but not confirmed.

  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, front-loaded with the key action and target. Every word adds value, with no unnecessary information.

  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 has no output schema, so the description should ideally describe the return format. It only says 'lists databases' without indicating whether the output is an array of strings, objects, etc. Given the simplicity of the tool, this is a moderate gap.

  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 no parameters, so the description does not need to add meaning beyond the schema. The schema coverage is 100%, so baseline 4 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 clearly states the tool lists all accessible databases on a MariaDB/MySQL server. The verb 'Lists' and resource 'databases' are specific. It distinguishes from siblings like list_tables (lists tables within a database) and describe_table (describes a table).

  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 discovering available databases, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_tables or read_query. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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

• describe_tableA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states what the tool does (describe structure) but does not disclose read-only nature, permission requirements, or any other behavioral traits. For a simple metadata read, this is adequate but minimal.

  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 effectively communicates the tool's purpose 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?

  For a simple schema retrieval tool with no output schema, the description is sufficient to understand its function. The hint about columns, types, and keys suggests the return structure. It could mention that it returns detailed metadata, but it is mostly 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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for both 'database' and 'table'. The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 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 clearly states that the tool describes table structure including columns, types, and keys. It is distinct from sibling tools like list_databases, list_tables, read_query, and write_query, which have different purposes.

  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?

  Usage is implied by the tool name and description: use when you need schema information. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives or any prerequisites.

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

• read_queryA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral transparency. It states the tool is read-only, but lacks details on authentication, rate limits, or error handling. This is sufficient but minimal.

  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?

  One concise sentence that front-loads the purpose and scope. No redundant information.

  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?

  Given the low complexity (2 params, no output schema), the description covers the essential read-only constraint and allowed commands. It could mention return behavior, but is complete enough for an agent to use correctly.

  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 is 100%, so the schema already describes both parameters. The description does not add extra meaning beyond listing allowed SQL commands, which is partially related to the query parameter.

  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 executes read-only SQL queries (SELECT, SHOW, DESCRIBE, EXPLAIN, WITH). It specifies the verb 'ejecuta' and resource 'consulta SQL de solo lectura', distinguishing it from write operations.

  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 use for read-only queries and explicitly lists allowed SQL commands. It does not directly mention alternatives like write_query, but sibling context makes it clear.

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

• write_queryA
  4.1/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Discloses the authorization requirement (MCP_XAMP_ALLOW_WRITE=true), which is useful behavioral context. However, with no annotations, it omits details like error handling, idempotency, or destructiveness.

  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?

  Single sentence covering purpose and requirement, no fluff. Front-loads critical information.

  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?

  With no output schema and a destructive tool, the description could mention return value (e.g., affected rows) or security warnings. It provides minimal but sufficient context for basic 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?

  Schema coverage is 100%, providing baseline 3. Description adds value by specifying query types (INSERT, UPDATE, DELETE, DDL), reinforcing the write nature beyond the schema description.

  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?

  Clearly states it executes SQL write queries (INSERT, UPDATE, DELETE, DDL). Distinguishes from sibling read_query and metadata tools.

  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?

  Implies usage for write operations by listing write command types and a required environment variable, but does not explicitly contrast with read_query or state when not to use.

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