Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• create-answersC
  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 full burden. It discloses the tool adds answers (a write operation) but lacks behavioral details like permission requirements, whether answers are editable after creation, rate limits, error handling, or what happens on success. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

  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, efficient sentence in Spanish that front-loads the key action and parameters. It wastes no words and is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

  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 annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a mutation tool. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error conditions, or behavioral traits like idempotency. While the schema covers inputs well, the overall context lacks necessary operational details.

  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 the schema fully documents the single parameter 'answers' and its nested structure (UUIDs, field indices, values). The description adds minimal semantics by mentioning UUIDs and field indices, but doesn't clarify format or constraints beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 clearly states the action ('Agrega múltiples respuestas') and the target resource ('a uno o varios formularios'), with specific identifiers ('mediante sus UUID y los índices de campo'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'create-form' (which creates forms) and 'get-answers' (which retrieves answers). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'get-form', though the verb 'Agrega' implies creation versus retrieval.

  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?

  The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., existing forms), exclusions (e.g., invalid UUIDs), or comparisons to siblings like 'get-answers' for reading answers. Usage is implied by the action but not explicitly stated.

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

• create-formC
  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 of behavioral disclosure. While 'Crea' implies a write/mutation operation, the description doesn't disclose important behavioral traits: what permissions are needed, whether the form becomes immediately available, what happens on failure, if there are rate limits, or what the return value looks like. For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

  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, efficient sentence in Spanish that clearly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the essential information about what the tool does.

  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?

  For a creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens after creation, what permissions are required, error conditions, or the structure of the response. The description alone doesn't provide enough context for an agent to understand the full implications of using this 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%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('title' and 'fields') comprehensively with detailed field specifications. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting, even though the description doesn't add value beyond the schema.

  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 action ('Crea' - creates) and resource ('un formulario dinámico con campos personalizados' - a dynamic form with custom fields). It specifies the type of form being created (dynamic with custom fields), which is reasonably specific. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get-form' or 'create-answers'.

  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?

  The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are sibling tools like 'get-form' (likely for retrieving forms) and 'create-answers' (likely for submitting form responses), but the description doesn't mention these alternatives or provide context about when this creation tool is appropriate versus other operations.

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

• get-formC
  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 of behavioral disclosure. It states this retrieves form structure, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify permissions needed, rate limits, error handling, or what 'estructura' entails (e.g., fields, metadata). For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps unaddressed.

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

  Conciseness4/5

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

  The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, with no wasted words. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating purpose from constraints, but it remains appropriately concise for a simple retrieval tool.

  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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'estructura' includes (e.g., fields, validation rules), potential errors, or the return format. For a tool with no structured behavioral or output documentation, the description should provide more context to compensate, which it fails to do adequately.

  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 has 100% description coverage, with the 'uuid' parameter fully documented as 'UUID del formulario'. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond this, such as where to find the UUID or format specifics. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as 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 clearly states the action ('obtiene' - gets/retrieves) and the resource ('estructura de un formulario existente' - structure of an existing form), making the purpose understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get-answers' or 'create-form', but the focus on form structure is reasonably distinct. The description avoids tautology by specifying what is retrieved rather than just restating the name.

  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?

  The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get-answers' or 'create-form'. It mentions the UUID requirement, but this is already covered in the input schema. There are no explicit instructions on prerequisites, error conditions, or appropriate contexts for selecting this tool over others.

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

• get-answersB
  3.1/5.0
  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 of behavioral disclosure. It states it retrieves answers from an existing form via UUID, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify permissions needed, error handling (e.g., invalid UUID), rate limits, or what the return format looks like (e.g., structured data). For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its 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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, with every part contributing to understanding the action and resource. There is zero waste, making it highly concise 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?

  Given the tool's low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on usage guidelines, behavioral traits, and output expectations. Without annotations or an output schema, the description should do more to compensate, but it meets a bare minimum for a simple read operation.

  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 schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'uuid' fully documented in the schema as 'UUID del formulario'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, as it only references the UUID without explaining its format or source. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to given the schema's completeness.

  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 action ('obtiene las respuestas' - gets answers) and the resource ('de un formulario existente' - from an existing form), using a specific verb and target. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get-form' by specifying it retrieves answers rather than the form itself. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'create-answers' beyond the verb difference.

  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?

  The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid UUID), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'get-form' (which might retrieve form structure) or 'create-answers' (which creates answers). Usage is implied through the verb 'obtiene' but not explicitly defined.

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