Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• run_playwright_testA
  3.7/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already mark the tool as destructive, open-world, and non-idempotent. The description adds valuable beyond-annotation context: an MCP human-approval step tied to the exact test digest, artifact-writing behavior, and the possibility of outbound network requests. This meaningfully clarifies the risk profile without contradicting the 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?

  Three sentences, each pulling weight: the first states the action, the second flags the approval boundary, and the third discloses network behavior. There is no filler, and the most important information is 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?

  This is a high-complexity tool with 8 parameters, one nested object, no output schema, and zero parameter descriptions. The description covers execution intent and risk but omits parameter semantics and any indication of return values or artifacts, leaving important gaps for an agent deciding how to invoke it correctly.

  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?

  Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only loosely maps to code and testPath via 'supplied local Playwright code or a local test file.' The other six parameters — headed, baseUrl, browser, timeoutMs, allowedEnv, and wallClockTimeoutMs — receive no elaboration, leaving the agent without semantic guidance for most inputs.

  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 specific verb-resource pair: 'Execute supplied local Playwright code or a local test file.' It further labels the tool as a 'code-execution and artifact-writing boundary,' which clearly separates it from read-oriented siblings like scan_url and inspect_page and from generation-focused generate_playwright_repro.

  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 tool is for running user-supplied Playwright code or test files, but it never states when to prefer this over the sibling tools or when not to use it. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, so the agent must infer selection criteria from tool names alone.

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

• inspect_pageA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, destructiveHint), the description discloses credential handling ('loaded into the throwaway browser context and never returned'), caller consent expectations, privacy implications, the non-modification guarantee, and the loopback-only private-network restriction. These are meaningful behavioral details not available in the schema or 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 compact and front-loaded: the core purpose appears first, followed by safety and consent details in logical order. Every sentence adds needed information without repetition or filler.

  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 read-only inspection tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential invocation context, safety semantics, and the categories of returned elements. It does not describe the result envelope, limits, failure behavior, or the full meaning of every toggle, but the operative constraints are well established.

  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 0%, so the description carries the burden for parameters. It adds real meaning for storageStatePath, acknowledgePrivateContent, and allowPrivateNetwork. The remaining parameters (url, viewport, includeForms, includeAccessibilityTree) are only conveyed by their names and type constraints, so the description does not fully compensate for the absence of schema descriptions.

  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 first sentence states a specific action and resource: 'Read page structure ... and return headings, forms, buttons, links, inputs, role/name selectors, and data-testid candidates.' This clearly identifies what the tool produces. However, it does not explicitly differentiate inspect_page from sibling tools like scan_url, so it falls short of the top rubric point.

  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 actionable context for the main conditional parameters: storageStatePath is for authenticated pages, acknowledgePrivateContent is required as consent because content may be private, and allowPrivateNetwork is limited to deliberate loopback development. It does not name alternatives or specify when not to use inspect_page, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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

• generate_playwright_reproA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  It adds substantial behavior beyond the destructiveHint annotation: it states the exact write location, mandates a relative outputPath, requires overwrite:true to replace existing files, and explicitly discloses that no outbound network request occurs. This safely frames a destructive write 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?

  Two sentences carry the full message: the first front-loads the primary action and inputs, and the second adds the critical constraints. No filler or repetition.

  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?

  Although there is no output schema, the description covers the key operational risks: destination, relative path, overwrite behavior, and lack of network access. It does not describe the return value or whether outputPath has a default, but the missing details are minor relative to what is provided for a moderately complex, destructive 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?

  With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for all six parameters. It does clarify url/goal/finding as alternative input sources and gives explicit constraints for outputPath and overwrite, but it leaves testName and the internal structure of the finding object unaddressed.

  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 specific verb and resource: 'Generate a minimal Playwright test...' and clearly names the output destination. It distinguishes itself from siblings like run_playwright_test by making clear it writes reproductions rather than executing them, and lists the three accepted input forms (scan finding, URL, plain-English goal).

  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 for when to use the tool: when the goal is to generate a reproduction from a finding, URL, or plain-English goal. It does not explicitly name alternative siblings or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full exclusionary guidance.

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

• scan_urlA
  4.6/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  Discloses side effects and sensitive behavior beyond the annotations: outbound network activity, auth credentials loaded into a throwaway context and never returned, explicit consent requirement, possible screenshot artifact, and loopback restriction on allowPrivateNetwork. Consistent with readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=false; no contradiction.

  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?

  Long but front-loaded and information-dense; every sentence adds operational value for a 12-parameter tool. The length is justified by the tool's complexity, and there is no filler or repetition.

  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?

  Covers authentication, privacy, output formats, baselines, and side effects, which is strong for a tool with no output schema. It is not flawless: three parameters are left unexplained and the default/JSON return shape is not described.

  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?

  With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by explaining format values, baseline behavior, minSeverity, storageStatePath, acknowledgePrivateContent, allowPrivateNetwork, and screenshot. However, maxLinks, viewport, and weightBudget have no explanatory text in either the schema or description, leaving a small but real gap.

  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?

  States a specific verb and resource: it inspects a URL via outbound browser and HTTP requests, and enumerates the exact categories of checks. This clearly identifies it as a scanner rather than the sibling playwright repro/page-inspection tools, so an agent can select it 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 Guidelines4/5

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

  Gives concrete context for non-obvious options: markdown for shareable reports, issue for tracker tickets, baseline for change-introduced findings, and acknowledgePrivateContent for authenticated scans. It does not explicitly contrast scan_url with sibling tools or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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