Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get_all_data_plansA
  3.7/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations are present, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It makes clear this is a retrieval operation, states the return format as a JSON string of data plans and metadata, and discloses that an exception is raised if credentials are missing or the request fails.

  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 purpose is front-loaded and the Args/Returns/Raises structure is easy to scan. The second sentence is largely redundant with the first, and the data-plan background sentence is optional, so it is not maximally tight.

  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 simple one-parameter read-only tool with an output schema, the description is nearly complete: it explains the argument, the return shape, and failure behavior. The main gap is not guiding the agent toward sibling tools for single-plan or status lookups.

  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 has no property descriptions, and the description only adds 'The mParticle workspace ID (required)' for workspace_id. This identifies the parameter's role but does not provide a format, example, or guidance on how to locate the ID.

  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 and resource: 'Get all data plans for a workspace' and 'retrieves all data plans from mParticle's Data Planning API.' The plural 'all' differentiates it from get_data_plan_by_id, though it does not explicitly name that sibling.

  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 intended use case is implied: use this when you need the full set of data plans for a workspace. However, there is no explicit guidance about alternatives like get_data_plan_by_id for a single plan or get_api_status for API health.

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

• get_api_statusA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that the tool returns a status message about whether API credentials are configured, but it omits any mention of side effects, network access, or authentication requirements. For a read-only status check this is adequate but shallow.

  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 extremely concise, with the action front-loaded and the return value cleanly specified. Every word earns its place; there is no verbosity or irrelevant detail.

  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 parameterless status check, the description covers the essential purpose and return value. It does not elaborate on interpreting the status message or external dependencies, but an output schema exists and sibling tools help define the domain, making this sufficiently complete.

  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?

  There are zero parameters, so there is nothing to explain. The baseline of 4 for a zero-parameter tool applies, and the description does not introduce any parameter-related confusion.

  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 states a specific action ('Check the status of mParticle API configuration') and clearly identifies the resource being checked. It is readily distinguished from sibling tools that operate on data plans, so an agent can tell them apart without deeper investigation.

  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?

  There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling data plan tools, so the usage context is only implied. However, the zero parameters and the specific resource ('API configuration' vs 'data plans') make the intended scenario reasonably clear.

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

• get_data_plan_by_idA
  4.1/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It states that the tool retrieves detailed information, returns a JSON string, and raises an exception on missing credentials or failed API requests. This covers the key behavioral aspects for a read-only retrieval tool.

  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 well-structured with clear sections for Args, Returns, and Raises. The background sentence about data plans is brief and adds context without bloating 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?

  For a simple two-parameter lookup, the description covers the core requirements: required arguments, return type, and failure behavior. An output schema exists, so detailed return fields do not need to be listed. It would benefit from explicit read-only or not-found behavior notes, but nothing critical is missing.

  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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does give one-line meanings for both workspace_id and data_plan_id, but these largely restate what the parameter names imply. It does not add formatting guidance, source details, or how IDs are structured.

  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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('a specific data plan by ID'), making the operation unambiguous. It also naturally distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'get_all_data_plans' by emphasizing the singular, ID-based retrieval.

  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 clearly implies this tool should be used when a specific data_plan_id is known and detailed information about that single plan is needed. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the 'by ID' framing provides sufficient context.

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