Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• unifi_getC
  2.2/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the operation is a read (GET), implying non-destructive behavior, but omits details about authentication, error handling, rate limits, or side effects. The minimal description fails to adequately inform the agent.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness3/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is extremely concise (one sentence), but it lacks structure and front-loads only a generic purpose. Every word is used, but the sentence does not deliver comprehensive information. It is adequate in length but not well-organized.

  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?

  Given the absence of output schema and annotations, the description is far from complete. It does not describe return values, error states, or parameter constraints. The tool has moderate complexity (4 parameters, including nested objects), but the description provides insufficient context for correct usage.

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

  Parameters1/5

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

  Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the description adds no meaning beyond the schema. While it mentions 'pathParams/query as needed', it does not explain the required parameters 'entity' and 'operationId', nor provide context for their values. This leaves the agent without sufficient understanding of parameter usage.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose3/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description states it invokes a read (GET) operation for an entity, providing a general purpose. However, it does not clearly differentiate from sibling tools like unifi_list_entities or unifi_describe_entity, which might also involve reading. The phrase 'read (GET) operation' is moderately clear but lacks specificity.

  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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. Sibling tools exist but no comparison is provided, leaving the agent to guess the appropriate context.

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

• unifi_describe_entityB
  3.1/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions the output includes read/write classification, but omits specifics like side effects (likely none), auth requirements, error handling, or data boundaries.

  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 concise sentence with no redundancy. All content is relevant and front-loaded.

  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?

  Given no output schema, no annotations, and simple input, the description fails to cover expected output format, valid entity values, or usage prerequisites. Agents may need to infer or experiment.

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

  Parameters1/5

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

  Schema coverage is 0% and the description does not clarify the 'entity' parameter (e.g., if it's a name, ID, or endpoint path). No validation or enumeration is provided, leaving agents guessing.

  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: describing an entity's operations, parameters, and HTTP method. This distinguishes it from siblings like unifi_list_entities (list all) and unifi_get (general get) by focusing on structural description.

  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 use when needing to understand an entity's API structure, but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives. Siblings are provided but not contrasted.

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

• unifi_invokeA
  3.5/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Discloses that the tool can perform writes and is gated by an environment variable, which is useful. However, without annotations, it omits details on side effects, auth requirements beyond the env variable, rate limits, or idempotency, leaving significant behavioral gaps.

  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?

  Two concise sentences, each adding distinct value: the core functionality and an important constraint. No redundancy or unnecessary words.

  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?

  Given 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse to fully guide the agent. It lacks details on valid entities/operations, request formatting, and what the tool returns, making it incomplete for reliable invocation.

  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?

  The description implies that operationId is the operation identifier from 'by id', but provides no explanation for entity, body, query, or pathParams. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to add meaning beyond the schema, making parameter usage unclear.

  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 'Invoke any operation by id (including writes)' which specifies the action (invoke) and the resource (operation by id). It distinguishes from siblings which are for listing, describing, and getting entities, not invoking 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?

  Provides context: 'Gated off unless UNIFI_ALLOW_WRITES=true' and 'Post-v1 write path', but lacks explicit guidance on when to use vs siblings (e.g., for creating/updating/deleting) and no when-not-to-use or alternative recommendations.

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

• unifi_list_entitiesA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses the operation (list) and the data (entities with op counts) but omits details like auth requirements, caching, or pagination. While the behavior is simple, additional transparency would be beneficial.

  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 sentence of 120 characters, highly concise and front-loaded with the core action. Every word adds value, and there is 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 list tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose and usage hint ('Call first'). It is missing explicit statements about output format, but the simplicity makes it reasonably complete.

  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, and the schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description correctly adds no parameter information, which is appropriate. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4.

  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 'List' and the resource 'UniFi entities (OpenAPI tags)', and specifies it includes read/write op counts. It effectively distinguishes itself from sibling tools by implying it is a discovery tool.

  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 phrase 'Call first' provides explicit usage guidance, indicating this tool should be invoked before others. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or contrast with siblings, leaving some room for ambiguity.

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