CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

finkel/mcp-tool-naming

Guidelines for naming MCP tools, describing parameters, and documenting tools in a language- and framework-agnostic manner

97

1.02x
Quality

Pending

Does it follow best practices?

Impact

97%

1.02x

Average score across 5 eval scenarios

SecuritybySnyk

Pending

The risk profile of this skill

Overview
Eval results
Files

Evaluation results

100%

Weather API MCP Tools Design

Tool naming conventions and structure

Criteria
Without context
With context

snake_case formatting

100%

100%

Domain prefixes

100%

100%

Action-oriented verbs

100%

100%

Naming consistency

100%

100%

Predictable patterns

100%

100%

Discoverable grouping

100%

100%

89%

3%

File System Tool Parameter Documentation

Parameter documentation and type definitions

Criteria
Without context
With context

Generic type names

100%

100%

Constraint documentation

93%

93%

Example values

100%

100%

Unit specification

100%

66%

Validation rules

100%

91%

Default values

100%

100%

Error messages

20%

100%

Valid/invalid examples

50%

50%

100%

4%

Database Tools Suite Consistency Review

Cross-tool consistency and organization

Criteria
Without context
With context

Consistent parameter names

100%

100%

Parameter ordering

86%

100%

Documentation structure

100%

100%

Error format

100%

100%

Tool grouping

100%

100%

Tool index/categorization

80%

100%

Cross-references

100%

100%

98%

1%

GitHub API Tools Documentation

Tool documentation structure and error handling

Criteria
Without context
With context

Avoid implementation details

100%

100%

Document behavior, not implementation

100%

100%

Consistent documentation structure

100%

100%

Error format consistency

100%

100%

Cross-platform considerations

100%

100%

See also references

100%

100%

Tool dependencies

100%

83%

Active voice

87%

87%

One-liner descriptions

66%

100%

Output contract clarity

100%

100%

100%

2%

Tool Documentation Review and Improvement

Comprehensive tool definition and guideline application

Criteria
Without context
With context

Naming convention violations

100%

100%

Parameter type issues

100%

100%

Missing constraints/examples

100%

100%

Implementation details in docs

100%

100%

Error documentation

100%

100%

Documentation structure

100%

100%

Cross-tool consistency

100%

100%

Tool organization

77%

100%

Language-agnostic practices

100%

100%

Side effects documentation

100%

100%

Failure mode details

100%

100%

Evaluated
Agent
Claude Code
Model
Claude Sonnet 4.6

Table of Contents