Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• command_searchA
  3.5/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds no behavioral details beyond 'search and inspect', such as result limits, pagination, or the open-world nature hinted by openWorldHint.

  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 with no wasted words. It effectively communicates the core function.

  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?

  Despite no output schema, the description omits what the tool returns (e.g., list of commands with details). The open-world hint is unaddressed. For a simple search tool, it is adequate but 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 is 100% with clear descriptions for each parameter. The description adds no extra meaning or examples beyond what the schema already provides, earning a baseline score.

  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 is for searching and inspecting mirrorable Cobra commands, with a specific verb-resource pair and distinguishing it from generic search or command execution siblings.

  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?

  No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The purpose is implied but lacks directives on alternatives like command_run or search.

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

• workflow_submitA
  3.5/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Beyond annotations (destructiveHint=true), the description adds that it's a transactional runner, previews unless confirmed, steps validated per-command, and constraints like one approval. No contradiction with annotations.

  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?

  Single sentence is concise but dense, packing multiple ideas. Could benefit from clearer structure or bullet points for readability.

  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 no output schema and complex nested input, the description covers key behavioral aspects but lacks details on return values, error handling, or comprehensive parameter behavior. Adequate but not 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%, so description need not elaborate on parameters. It does add that the 'yes' flag switches from preview to apply, and steps are validated like command_run, but doesn't detail other parameters beyond what schema provides.

  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 submits an inline multi-step workflow, distinguishing it from single-command tools like command_run. However, it does not explicitly contrast with siblings beyond mentioning steps are validated like command_run.

  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 some usage context: 'previews unless yes' indicates when to use the yes flag, and mentions approval and journal run id. But lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like command_run or search.

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

• command_runA
  3.6/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Annotations already flag destructive behavior and non-read-only operation, so the bare 'Run' wording does not contradict them. The top-level description adds no further behavioral context such as side effects, write-safety gates, or return behavior; those details appear in the schema, not in the description.

  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 compact sentence that front-loads the operation; it has no filler. Detailed flag semantics are correctly deferred to the schema rather than repeated in the description.

  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?

  The combination of the terse description, the rich flags parameter description, and the destructive/readOnly annotations gives an agent enough to invoke the tool safely. The main unresolved piece is the meaning of 'mirrorable', and there is no mention of output or error behavior, but for a command runner this is a modest gap.

  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 100% schema description coverage, the parameters are already documented in the schema. The top-level description adds little beyond restating that the command is addressed by a space-separated path, which duplicates the name parameter's description.

  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 names a concrete action ('Run'), a specific resource ('one mirrorable Cobra command'), and the addressing scheme ('space-separated command path'). It makes clear this executes a command rather than searches for one, but it does not name siblings or explain the unexplained 'mirrorable' qualifier.

  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 the use case: given a command path, run it. It does not explicitly state when to choose this over command_search, context, query, or workflow_submit; the only cross-reference is the schema's note to inspect available flags via command_search, which is not in the description itself.

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

• searchA
  3.7/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint true and destructiveHint false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds operational constraints: the requirement to sync first and the bounding of large responses to the MCP tool-result budget. These are behavioral disclosures beyond annotations and help the agent anticipate side conditions. No contradiction with 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 four short sentences, each earning its place: purpose, fulltext usage, prerequisite, and response budget. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately gives actionable guidance. There is no filler or redundancy.

  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 tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main operational aspects: what it searches, the sync prerequisite, the response budget, and a hint for the fulltext flag. However, it does not describe the return format or how results are structured when fulltext is false, nor does it elaborate on what 'synced data' includes. Given there is no output schema, a bit more detail on expected results would improve completeness, but it is adequate for the schema-covered parameters.

  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%, so each parameter is already documented. The description adds a functional hint for fulltext by explaining how it resolves PDF-text hits to parent items, but this largely rephrases the schema's parameter description. The added value is marginal; the baseline of 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.

  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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Full-text search across synced data.' It clearly identifies what the tool does. While there is a sibling command_search, the description does not explicitly differentiate the two, but the 'synced data' qualifier implies a distinct scope. It is clear enough to guide selection, though it could more explicitly contrast with command_search.

  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 gives a prerequisite ('Requires sync first') and a specific use for the fulltext parameter ('Set fulltext to resolve synced PDF-text hits to parent items'). However, it does not explain when to prefer this tool over command_search or other siblings, nor does it indicate when not to use it. The context is provided but no explicit exclusions or alternative routing.

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

• contextA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Annotations already disclose readOnly and openWorld. Description adds what the context contains but does not contradict 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?

  Two concise sentences, no wasted words. Front-loaded with action and resource.

  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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does and when to use it.

  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?

  No parameters exist; baseline 4 per instructions. Description adds no parameter info, but none needed.

  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 the tool retrieves API domain context including specific items (resource taxonomy, auth requirements, etc.). Distinct from sibling action 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?

  Explicitly says 'Call this first', providing clear temporal guidance. Does not explicitly name alternatives but context implies using siblings for subsequent actions.

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

• sqlA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint), description adds return structure ('rows, truncated, row_limit') and budget bound, providing useful behavioral context.

  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 sentences, no wasted words. Purpose and behavioral details are front-loaded and concise.

  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?

  Despite no output schema and single parameter, description covers purpose, usage, return format, constraints, and budget limits, making it complete for this simple tool.

  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% and the parameter description in schema is adequate; description adds no new parameter-level detail beyond what schema provides.

  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?

  Description clearly states the tool runs read-only SQL for ad-hoc analysis, aggregations, and joins, differentiating it from sibling tools like command_run or search.

  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?

  Explicitly states use case ('ad-hoc analysis, aggregations, joins') and prerequisite ('requires sync first'), but does not list when not to use or mention alternatives.

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