Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• otask_update_taskA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations indicate non-readOnly, non-idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds that it fetches current task, merges changes, and submits full payload, providing crucial behavioral context beyond 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?

  Well-structured with bullet points for common updates and Args. No unnecessary sentences; every part adds value.

  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?

  Complex tool with 14 parameters, high schema coverage, no output schema. Description covers the merging process and return value ('returns updated task summary'), making it fairly 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 93%, so baseline is 3. Description adds value by explaining common parameter usage (e.g., 'board_column_id: move task') but does not significantly extend beyond schema descriptions.

  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 'Update an existing O!task task' with the HTTP method and endpoint. Distinguishes from sibling 'otask_get_task' by being an update operation.

  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 advises 'Only pass fields you want to change' and lists common updates. While it doesn't mention when to use an alternative (e.g., create), the context is clear for update vs. read.

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

• otask_get_taskA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, and idempotentHint, so the description doesn't need to restate safety. It adds value by listing the returned fields, providing transparency on the output.

  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?

  Extremely concise: one sentence for purpose, one for usage guidance, parameter list, return fields, and a docs link. No wasted words.

  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, the description lists all returned fields, provides a docs link, and gives clear parameter extraction instructions. Everything an agent needs to use this tool correctly is included.

  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 100%, but the description adds practical context for both parameters (UUID extraction from URL), which helps agents correctly extract values. This goes beyond schema documentation.

  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 'Fetch a task from O!task by workspace and task slug.' This is a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes from the sibling 'otask_update_task' by advising use before updates.

  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 recommends using before otask_update_task to inspect current field values. While it doesn't mention when not to use, the read-only nature is clear from annotations and context. Alternative is implied.

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