Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• nodemaven_check_proxyA
  4.7/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  The description discloses that exactly one request is sent, describes the return schema and failure format, and notes that over-narrow targeting is a common failure cause. Annotations already mark it read-only, so the description adds beyond by explaining operational behavior. No contradiction.

  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 well-structured with a clear opening, usage context, return schema, examples, and an exclusion. Each section earns its place, and it is not excessively verbose for a tool with 10 parameters.

  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 the tool's complexity (10 parameters), the description covers purpose, use cases, failure behavior, return format, and a sibling alternative. The schema and annotations supply parameter and safety details, so the description is contextually complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

  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?

  Although schema descriptions cover all parameters (100%), the description adds meaning with concrete examples: using country='de' to test exit country, and session_id='ab12cd' to test sticky sessions. It also explains the interplay of city and ISP for targeting. This goes beyond the schema.

  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 ('Send one request through the proxy') and clearly states the output (exit IP, geo, latency). It also distinguishes from sibling nodemaven_list_locations by explicitly stating when not to use it. This fulfills purpose clarity.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines5/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  Explicitly states 'Use this before a scraping run to confirm...' and provides a 'Don't use when' with an alternative tool. This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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

• nodemaven_get_usageA
  4.7/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: it requires NODEMAVEN_API_KEY, explains the return format as Markdown or JSON with the same pagination envelope as nodemaven_list_locations, and specifies the failure format. These details help the agent understand side effects, prerequisites, and error handling beyond what readOnlyHint/idempotentHint already convey.

  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 well-structured and front-loaded: first line states the main purpose, followed by when-to-use, return format, examples, and auth requirement. Each section earns its place, and the total length is appropriate for the tool's complexity. No redundant or filler content.

  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?

  For a read-only reporting tool with well-described schema and annotations, the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, usage scenarios, return type and format, error behavior, and authentication. It also references the pagination envelope from nodemaven_list_locations, making the integration contract clear without over-explaining.

  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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by providing concrete usage examples that map natural language queries to specific 'kind' values ('how much traffic have I burned?' -> kind='data'). This helps the agent select the correct parameter values, exceeding the bare schema definitions.

  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's function: 'Report account usage: traffic consumed, request counts or per-domain breakdown.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from siblings like nodemaven_build_proxy_url or nodemaven_fetch. The examples further clarify what the tool does.

  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 explicitly says when to use the tool: 'Use this to check remaining traffic before a large run, or to attribute spend to the domains that caused it.' It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the context is clear and specific enough for an agent to decide appropriately.

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

• nodemaven_list_locationsA
  4.7/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond annotations: the exact return structure (Markdown/JSON with schema), failure format ('Error: ...'), API key requirement, and the practical consequence of incorrect spellings. It does not contradict the read-only/idempotent 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?

  The description is well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose. It flowssections for usage guidance, return schema, examples, and requirement, with no redundant sentences. The length is appropriate for the tool's complexity.

  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?

  For a discovery tool with six optional parameters and an output schema, the description is complete: it covers purpose, when to use, return format, error handling, API key requirement, and provides examples. The schema covers parameter details, so no important gaps remain.

  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%, so the baseline is 3. The description enriches parameter understanding with examples like 'list German cities' -> level='cities', country='de', and mentions response_format implicitly via 'Markdown or JSON'. This adds value beyond the schema's individual parameter 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?

  The description clearly states that the tool lists available targeting locations (countries, regions, cities, ISPs, zip codes), using a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by its focus on location discovery before targeting.

  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?

  It explicitly says to use this tool to discover exact spellings before targeting and warns against guessing, which causes empty pools. It provides concrete examples mapping intents to parameter values. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare with alternative tools, so it falls just short of a 5.

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

• nodemaven_build_proxy_urlA
  4.8/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint), the description discloses that no network call is made, which is essential behavioral context. It also specifies the return format, includes a failure string pattern, and implies password masking through the output schema. This adds meaningful transparency beyond structured annotations.

  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 a concise opening sentence, a return schema block, examples, and an exclusion note. It is somewhat long, and the included return schema duplicates what an output schema likely already provides, but every section serves a practical purpose and the first sentence carries the core intent.

  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 the tool's complexity (11 parameters, rich schema, sibling alternatives), the description is complete: it states the use case, clarifies the no-network-call behavior, gives concrete examples for parameter usage, and warns when not to use it. The combination of schema, annotations, and description leaves no major gaps.

  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 input schema already covers 100% of parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds valuable examples mapping natural language to parameters (e.g., 'give me a US proxy string for curl' -> country='us', reveal_credentials=true) and explains the session_id sticky-IP behavior. This goes beyond the schema, but not all 11 parameters receive extra semantic detail.

  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's function: 'Build a NodeMaven proxy URL with geo targeting encoded in the username.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and the sibling tools (nodemaven_check_proxy, nodemaven_fetch, etc.) are distinct in purpose, so there is no ambiguity.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines5/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description gives explicit when-to-use guidance: hand a ready connection string to other tools like curl, Playwright, Scrapy, or requests. It also provides clear alternatives: use nodemaven_check_proxy to verify the IP works, and nodemaven_fetch when page content is needed. This fully satisfies the dimension.

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

• nodemaven_fetchA
  4.8/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  Annotations already establish the tool as readOnly and non-destructive, but the description adds substantial behavioral context beyond that: HTML is converted to readable text by default, responses can be truncated, error messages include remediation details, and the full return schema is provided with fields like truncated and proxy. This gives the agent a clear picture of what to expect.

  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 distinct sections for purpose, usage, return schema, examples, and an explicit anti-caveat. It is somewhat lengthy due to the included return schema, but every section earns its place and the front-loaded purpose/usage makes it efficient to scan.

  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 the tool's complexity (13 parameters, rich output), the description is complete: it covers purpose, when to use, return format, error behavior, and examples. The schema provides full parameter documentation, and the description's output schema and 'Don't use' guidance seal any gaps.

  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?

  Input schema covers 100% of parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful usage examples for country and city (e.g., country='de' for German visitor), and clarifies the as_text parameter's behavior. However, it does not discuss all parameters, so the schema remains the primary source for many.

  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 fetches a URL through a NodeMaven proxy and returns content. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like nodemaven_build_proxy_url and nodemaven_check_proxy by focusing on the actual fetch operation. Examples reinforce the purpose.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines5/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  Provides explicit 'Use this when' (geo-restricted or blocks datacenter traffic) and 'Don't use when' (site reachable without a proxy) guidance. Also gives contextual examples such as 'read this page as a German visitor' and 'check the price shown to US shoppers' to illustrate parameter usage. Indicates when to set as_text=false for markup.

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