Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• convert_pdf_to_markdownB
  3.2/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions a 'one-step workflow' but does not explain whether the operation is synchronous, what side effects occur, or any authentication or rate-limiting requirements. Critical behavioral context is missing.

  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 a single sentence that is front-loaded with the most important information (alias relationship). It is concise and contains no unnecessary words, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness2/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the tool is a conversion with four parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It omits crucial context such as how results are returned, error handling, and whether the process is asynchronous. The presence of sibling tools like get_task_status suggests async workflow, but this is not clarified.

  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 covers all four parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds no new parameter-level information beyond what the schema already provides. Thus, the description provides no added value for parameter understanding.

  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 explicitly states it is an alias for convert_to_markdown and lists all supported formats. The verb 'convert' and resource 'to markdown' are clear, and it distinguishes itself from siblings by being a direct alias.

  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 lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only states it's an alias, but does not explain when to prefer it over other sibling tools like get_task_status or create_parse_task.

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

• create_parse_taskA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses that it calls MinerU API and returns a task_id for tracking, but omits details like rate limits, authentication needs, or idempotency.

  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, front-loaded with the primary action, and every sentence adds value. No unnecessary words.

  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?

  The description adequately covers the purpose, side effect, constraints, and return value (task_id) despite lacking an output schema. Minor omission: no mention of error handling.

  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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no new parameter meaning beyond repeating supported formats; it does not compensate for any gaps.

  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 creates a document parsing task on MinerU API, with a specific verb 'Create' and resource 'parse task'. It distinguishes from siblings (get_task_status, download_result, etc.) by focusing on submission for async conversion.

  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 this is the entry point for document conversion via async parsing, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. It lacks when-not or exclusion guidance.

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

• convert_to_markdownA
  4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the side effect: 'Creates task and polls MinerU API,' and explains auto-configuration of model and OCR. It does not mention auth needs or rate limits, but for a conversion tool this is acceptable and adds significant value beyond the schema.

  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 with three brief sentences and front-loaded key information. Every sentence adds value: purpose, steps, constraints, side effect, and use case. No wasted words.

  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 and 4 params, the description explains the conversion process and what the tool returns (download link). It covers supported formats, auto-configuration, and side effects. It could explicitly state that it combines create and poll steps, but 'one-step' and 'Creates task and polls' imply that.

  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 is 3. The description does not add new semantic meaning to parameters beyond what the schema already provides. It mentions auto-configuration, which relates to model_version, but does not enhance understanding of poll_interval or max_wait_seconds.

  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 purpose: 'One-step document conversion' with explicit steps: 'Submit URL, poll until done, return download link.' It distinguishes from siblings like convert_pdf_to_markdown by being a general converter supporting multiple formats (PDF, DOC, DOCX, etc.) and being 'quick conversion.'

  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?

  It says 'Use for quick conversion' and lists supported formats, giving context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or provide alternatives to siblings like create_parse_task or download_result. The guidance is implied but not thorough.

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

• download_resultA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Explicitly states 'No side effect', which is valuable since no annotations are provided. Discloses that the tool returns a URL (not the file), and explains the expected download process. Could mention error handling or rate limits, but overall good.

  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 relatively concise with two clear parts: purpose and usage instructions. The inline command is lengthy but necessary for usability. Could be split into separate lines, but overall well-structured.

  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 tool with no output schema, the description covers the return type (URL) and downstream actions (curl/unzip). Missing details about error handling or URL validation, but these are not critical for a download URL getter.

  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 already describes zip_url as 'URL of the result zip file (from get_task_status)'. The description adds context by stating the purpose is to return the zip URL from get_task_status, reinforcing the source and usage pattern.

  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 action: 'Get the download URL for a completed parsing result'. It uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from siblings like get_task_status which provides the URL source.

  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?

  Provides explicit post-call steps: download with curl and unzip. Implicitly ties usage to get_task_status by mentioning zip_url, but does not explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives.

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

• get_task_statusA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  Explicitly declares side effect as read-only API call. No annotations provided, so description carries full burden and fulfills it. Describes return values.

  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?

  Four concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no redundant information.

  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?

  Covers purpose, parameters, return values, and side effect. For a simple polling tool with no output schema, this is sufficient.

  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 provides full descriptions (100% coverage); description adds minimal nuance by specifying 'URL-based' and 'file upload', which is already in schema. Baseline 3.

  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?

  States specific verb 'check' and resource 'status of a document parsing task'. Differentiates from siblings like create_parse_task (creation) and download_result (download).

  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?

  Indicates polling use case and parameter choice but does not explicitly exclude when not to use or compare with siblings. Context is clear but lacks directiveness.

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