Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• tavily-extractC
  2.9/5.0
  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. However, it only says 'retrieves and processes raw content' without mentioning side effects, permissions, rate limits, or compliance matters like robots.txt. This is insufficient for a web extraction 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 a single, efficient sentence that clearly states the tool's purpose. However, it could be more structured, such as by separating the general function from usage context.

  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 has 5 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description lacks details about return values, error handling, or performance considerations. It fails to provide a complete picture for an agent to make informed decisions.

  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 the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides for each parameter. It does not clarify format choices, depth implications, or image inclusion effects beyond what is listed.

  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 identifies the tool as a web content extraction tool that retrieves and processes raw content from specified URLs. It uses specific verbs and resources, and while it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like tavily-crawl, the context suggests extraction is for individual URLs.

  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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings. It only offers generic ideal use cases ('data collection, content analysis, and research tasks') without indicating when to choose extract over crawl, map, or search.

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

• tavily-mapB
  3.3/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations, the description must cover behavioral traits. It mentions 'crawler' but does not disclose how it handles JavaScript, rate limits, robot.txt, or data retention. The description is insufficient for an agent to understand side effects or constraints.

  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, consisting of two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's value. However, it could be structured to front-load the core action more clearly.

  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 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should explain the output structure (e.g., tree vs. list) and how the map is presented. It omits these critical details, making it incomplete for effective use.

  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 additional meaning beyond the schema, simply restating the overall purpose without elaborating on parameters.

  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 it creates a structured map of website URLs for discovering site structure, content organization, and navigation paths. It distinguishes from siblings (crawl, extract, search) by focusing on mapping and analysis.

  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 provides some usage context ('Perfect for site audits, content discovery, and understanding website architecture') but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use or how it compares to siblings, leaving the agent to infer.

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

• tavily-searchB
  3.3/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'real-time results' and 'customizable parameters' but omits important behavioral traits such as rate limits, result count limits, pagination, or whether the operation is read-only. The description implies a read operation but does not explicitly state it.

  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 primary purpose, and each sentence contributes value without repetition or fluff.

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

  Completeness3/5

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

  For a tool with 15 parameters and no output schema, the description is somewhat brief. It gives a high-level overview but lacks details on return format, result structure, or pagination behavior. The description is adequate but not comprehensive.

  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 the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds general context by summarizing parameter categories (result count, content type, domain filtering), but does not provide additional meaning beyond what is in the schema.

  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 identifies the tool as a web search tool with real-time results and customizable parameters. However, it does not distinguish it from sibling tools like tavily-crawl, tavily-extract, or tavily-map, which may also perform web content retrieval.

  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?

  No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description states it is 'ideal for gathering current information, news, and detailed web content analysis,' but does not specify when to avoid it or mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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

• tavily-crawlA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It explains the crawler's graph-like expansion and control over depth/breadth, but omits behavioral details such as asynchronicity, rate limits, or side effects. It provides adequate but not comprehensive 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 three sentences long, front-loads the core purpose, and contains no redundant information. Every sentence contributes meaning.

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

  Completeness3/5

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

  Despite 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is somewhat light for a complex 11-parameter tool. It does not mention the output format or any operational constraints (e.g., timeouts, error handling), leaving some gaps in completeness.

  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 the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema by describing the crawler's graph expansion and ability to focus on sections, which enhances understanding of how parameters like max_depth and max_breadth work together.

  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 it is a web crawler that starts from a base URL and expands like a graph, distinguishing it from sibling tools like extract, map, and search. It specifies the core action (initiates a structured crawl) and the resource (URL).

  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 structured web crawling but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., tavily-search). It lacks explicit when-not or alternative suggestions.

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