Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• analyze_packages_bulkA
  4.1/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and the description is consistent with them. It adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations by disclosing parallel execution and the 50-package limit with chunking guidance.

  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 three front-loaded sentences with no filler: purpose and result first, usage triggers second, output summary and limit third. Every sentence earns its place and the structure makes the tool easy to evaluate quickly.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness5/5

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

  Given the annotations covering safety, a single parameter with full schema coverage, and an output schema, the description is complete. It covers purpose, result contents, common input sources, and the chunking limit. The only minor omission is an explicit pointer to the singular sibling, but the plural focus makes that implicit.

  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?

  With schema description coverage at 100%, the schema already explains the single 'changes' parameter and its structure. The description reinforces the bulk nature and the 50-package limit, but it does not add new semantic detail about the parameter fields themselves, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

  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 a specific verb, resource, and result: it analyzes a list of package upgrades in parallel and returns a unified risk report with packages ranked by recommendation level. It distinguishes itself from the sibling analyze_package_change through its explicit plural/bulk focus, though it does not name the sibling directly.

  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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance by listing concrete triggers: Dependabot PR, npm outdated output, lockfile diff, or batch upgrade. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention the singular alternative, so it stops short of a full 5.

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

• analyze_package_changeA
  4.7/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false). The description adds non-redundant behavioral context: it specifies the structured analysis contents, including semver classification, breaking-change detection, security advisories, and migration links. It also discloses ecosystem-specific naming behavior for github-actions, which is useful behavioral nuance beyond what annotations express.

  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 front-loaded with the primary behavior, then moves through triggers, supported ecosystems, and alternative routing. Every sentence earns its place: the output list sets expectations, the example queries illustrate intent, the ecosystem note prevents mis-use, and the sibling reference prevents mis-routing. The only minor redundancy is repeating 'single package' already in the title, but it reinforces scope.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness5/5

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

  With an output schema present and safety annotations covering side effects, the description leaves no critical gap. It explains what the tool returns, exactly when to invoke it, which ecosystems are supported, how to write the name for github-actions, and when to prefer the bulk sibling. An agent has everything necessary to select and invoke this tool correctly.

  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 description coverage is 100% and all four parameters have clear descriptions with examples, so the schema carries most of the burden. The description adds one genuinely useful parameter nuance beyond the schema: for github-actions, the name parameter should use the action reference like 'actions/checkout'. No other parameter semantics are added, so a 4 rather than 5 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 opens with a precise verb-resource pairing: 'Given one package and two versions... returns a structured upgrade analysis' and enumerates the concrete outputs (semver classification, release notes, breaking changes, advisories, migration links, recommendation). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling by describing what analyze_packages_bulk is for, so an agent can tell them apart without opening schemas.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines5/5

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

  Provides explicit usage criteria: 'Use when the user asks about a specific package upgrade' followed by three concrete example queries. It also states the exclusion condition: 'For analyzing many packages at once or a Dependabot batch, use analyze_packages_bulk instead.' This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance with an alternative.

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