Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get_statsC
  2.9/5.0
  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 'retrieve,' which implies a read-only operation, but it does not confirm safety, describe the nature of the statistics, or disclose any potential side effects or limitations.

  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 a single, short sentence with no fluff, but it is also under-specified—'statistics information' is vague and leaves the agent guessing about what exactly is retrieved. This is under-specification, not effective conciseness.

  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?

  With no output schema and no annotations, the description needs to explain the return format and scope of the statistics. It does not, and it also lacks any mention of when the tool is relevant relative to the sibling skill-related tools. The minimal context is insufficient for confident invocation.

  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 the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies there are no inputs needed, and the schema confirms 100% coverage with no properties to document.

  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 identifies the action (取得/retrieve) and resource (データベースの統計情報/database statistics), and the tool name 'get_stats' aligns. It does not explicitly distinguish from siblings, but the siblings are about skills and categories, so the distinction is apparent enough.

  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?

  There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention suitable contexts, exclusions, or relationships to sibling tools like search_skills or list_categories.

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

• list_categoriesB
  3.3/5.0
  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 disclosure. It only says 'get available category list' and does not add context about return format, ordering, pagination, or non-destructive read 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, front-loaded sentence that directly communicates the tool's purpose with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple parameterless list operation.

  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 tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema, no nested objects), the description sufficiently indicates what the list contains ('available categories'). However, it could mention the output format or edge cases, but none are critical for this trivial list tool.

  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 the schema confirms this. Per guidelines, a baseline of 4 applies because no parameter documentation is needed.

  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 retrieves a list of available categories, using a specific verb ('取得します') and resource ('カテゴリ一覧'). It distinguishes from sibling tools, which focus on skills and stats, but does not explicitly contrast with them.

  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 tool names hint at different resources, but the description does not mention any exclusions or preferred contexts.

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

• search_skillsA
  3.7/5.0
  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 but only mentions search behavior and filtering. It does not disclose that this is a read-only operation, nor does it describe the return format or any limitations such as pagination or rate limits.

  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 two sentences, front-loads the purpose, and contains no redundant information. It is efficient 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?

  Without an output schema, the description does not explain what the search returns (e.g., result list, count, relevance ordering). The internal filtering guidance is present, but the description lacks information about the return format and read-only behavior, leaving some gaps for an agent.

  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 input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, and the tool description repeats the types guidance without adding additional semantic meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema already explains query, types, and max_results.

  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 it searches all types by keyword, listing each type explicitly. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like recommend_skills and list_categories, which serve 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 Guidelines4/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  It explains that the types parameter should only be used when the user explicitly requests a specific type, otherwise all types are searched. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or describe when to prefer search_skills over sibling tools.

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

• recommend_skillsA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context about the default behavior (recommends all types) and the filtering rule, but it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, the return format, or any authentication/rate-limit considerations. This is a moderate gap given the absent annotations.

  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 concise, two sentences, and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence contributes value: the first states the primary function, the second covers default behavior and parameter usage. 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?

  The tool has no output schema, and the description does not explain what the recommendation result looks like (e.g., list of tool names, reasons, confidence). It covers types, defaults, and filtering context well, but leaves the return value ambiguous. Given the moderate complexity, the description is adequate but has 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 coverage is 100%, with each parameter having a description. The description reinforces the types parameter's usage by repeating the default behavior and the condition for filtering, but it does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides. 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 clearly states the tool's function: analyze a project and recommend appropriate tools. It specifies the resource (project analysis) and the verb (recommend), and distinguishes itself from siblings like search_skills and get_skill_details by focusing on project-based recommendations rather than search or detail retrieval.

  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 provides clear context: the tool recommends tools based on project analysis, and explicitly instructs when to use the types parameter (only when the user requests a specific type). However, it does not mention sibling alternatives or when not to use this tool, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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

• get_skill_detailsA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates a read operation via '取得します', but it does not mention error conditions, return structure, or side effects. For a simple get operation this is minimal but not misleading.

  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 states the action and enumerates supported types without unnecessary filler. Every phrase 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.

  Completeness4/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a simple single-parameter lookup, the description provides sufficient context about what the tool targets and what it does. The lack of an output schema makes some ambiguity about return format acceptable, though specifying expected result structure 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 schema fully covers the single 'name' parameter, and the tool description enriches it by listing the full range of accepted tool types (workflows, hooks, commands, agents) beyond the schema's basic 'skill/plugin/MCP name'. This adds meaning by clarifying the valid domain of the 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 a specific action ('取得します' / retrieves) and a specific resource: detailed information about a particular tool. It enumerates the supported tool types (plugin, MCP server, skill, workflow, hook, command, agent), distinguishing it from siblings like search_skills or list_categories that have broader or different scope.

  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 tool is for retrieving details of a known named tool, but it does not explicitly state when to use it instead of alternatives such as search_skills or recommend_skills. No exclusions or alternative guidance are provided, so usage context is only implied.

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