Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• read_holding_registersB
  3.2/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It correctly states the tool is read-only and describes the return format (start address, count, unit id, list of address->value pairs). However, it does not disclose potential error conditions, timeouts, or concurrency behavior, leaving gaps in transparency.

  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 concise (2 sentences) and front-loads the key purpose with the function code. It efficiently covers the operation, data type, and return structure without unnecessary 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?

  Given no output schema, the description adequately describes the return structure. It covers the essential aspects of the operation for a simple read tool. However, it omits details like the unit id source or defaults, which could be inferred but are not explicit.

  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 for both parameters (address and count) with clear ranges and defaults. The description adds no new information about parameter semantics beyond what the schema already 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 reads holding registers using Modbus function code 0x03, specifying the data type (16-bit read/write values). It implicitly distinguishes from siblings like read_coils and read_input_registers by name and context, but could be more explicit about differentiation.

  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 or any prerequisites. It mentions 'Read-only' but does not specify when not to use it or any preconditions for the Modbus device.

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

• read_coilsA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It clearly states 'Read-only' and describes the return structure (start address, count, unit id, list of address->boolean pairs). This sufficiently discloses that the operation is safe and has no side effects.

  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 concise—three sentences with no fluff: purpose, explanation of coils, and return value structure. Every sentence earns its place.

  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?

  Given the tool is simple and no output schema exists, the description adequately covers the return components. Missing are error conditions and prerequisites (e.g., device connection), but for a basic read operation the description is largely 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 the schema already describes both parameters well. The description adds context about coils being 'single-bit on/off values' but does not expand on parameter meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate; the description adds marginal value.

  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 specific verb 'read' and resource 'coils' and includes the function code (FC 0x01). It distinguishes from siblings like 'read_holding_registers' by specifying it reads single-bit values, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

  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 vs. alternatives. It does not mention when not to use it or compare to sibling tools. The sibling names are listed externally but not referenced in the description.

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

• read_input_registersA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It states the tool reads read-only input registers, implying no side effects, but does not elaborate on error behavior, potential delays, or other operational traits. Adequate but not comprehensive.

  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, front-loaded with action and context. Every word is purposeful with no redundancy. Efficient and clear.

  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 read-only tool with two well-documented parameters, the description covers the purpose, register type, and return format. Lacks only finer behavioral details, but overall complete given the tool's complexity.

  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 baseline 3. The description only mentions address and count as part of the return but adds no additional meaning or syntax details beyond what the schema provides. No new parameter semantics.

  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 reads input registers via Modbus function code 0x04, specifying they are 16-bit read-only measurements. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like read_coils and read_holding_registers by naming the specific register type and function code.

  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 usage for reading input registers but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like read_holding_registers. No exclusion criteria or context for selection are given.

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

• get_device_infoA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  The description declares the tool is 'Read-only', which is a key behavioral trait. It also notes that certain fields are conditional ('when the device supports...'), providing transparency beyond the empty schema. No annotations are present, so the description fully handles transparency.

  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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and every sentence adds value. No fluff.

  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 no output schema, the description thoroughly explains what is returned (vendor, product code, revision, host, port, unit id). It is sufficient for an AI to understand the tool's output.

  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?

  The tool has zero parameters, so schema_description_coverage is 100%. Per guidelines, baseline is 4. No additional parameter information is 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?

  The description clearly states the tool retrieves identity and connection details for a Modbus device. It uses a specific verb 'Get' and specifies the resource (device info). The sibling tools read coils/registers, which are distinct, so this tool is well differentiated.

  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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage for device identity and connection details, but no when-not or alternative references are provided. However, the context is clear enough from the sibling tools.

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