Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get_talksC
  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 carries the full burden. It mentions 'optional filtering and pagination' but lacks critical behavioral details: what the return format looks like (e.g., list structure, fields included), whether it's a safe read operation (implied by 'Get' but not explicit), error handling, rate limits, or authentication requirements. For a tool with 10 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

  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, efficient sentence: 'Get a list of talks with optional filtering and pagination.' It's front-loaded with the core purpose and wastes no words. Every part of the sentence earns its place by highlighting key features.

  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's complexity (10 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on return values, error conditions, behavioral traits (e.g., whether it's idempotent or safe), and usage context relative to siblings. For a list-retrieval tool with rich filtering options, more guidance is needed to help an agent use it effectively.

  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 fully documents all 10 parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema—it mentions 'optional filtering and pagination,' which aligns with parameters like 'skip,' 'limit,' and filtering fields, but doesn't provide additional syntax, format details, or usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

  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's purpose: 'Get a list of talks with optional filtering and pagination.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('talks'), and mentions key capabilities (filtering, pagination). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_posts' or 'get_videos' beyond the resource type.

  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. It mentions 'optional filtering and pagination' but doesn't specify scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. With sibling tools like 'get_posts' and 'get_videos' available, there's no indication of when to choose talks over posts or videos.

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

• get_videosC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions filtering and pagination but fails to describe critical behaviors like whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are needed, rate limits, error handling, or the format of returned data. For a tool with 5 parameters and no annotations, this is inadequate.

  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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get a list of videos') and adds key features ('with optional filtering and pagination') without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

  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's moderate complexity (5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavioral traits, output format, error conditions, and differentiation from siblings. While the schema covers parameters well, the description doesn't compensate for missing annotations and output schema, leaving the agent with incomplete context.

  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 description adds minimal value beyond the input schema, which has 100% coverage with clear parameter descriptions. It mentions 'optional filtering and pagination' which aligns with parameters like 'id', 'title', 'language', 'skip', and 'limit', but doesn't provide additional semantic context or usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema's thoroughness.

  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 action ('Get a list of videos') and resource ('videos'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from potential siblings like 'get_posts' or 'get_talks' beyond the resource type, which prevents a perfect score.

  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 mentions 'optional filtering and pagination' which implies some usage context, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_posts' or 'get_talks', nor any prerequisites or exclusions. This leaves significant gaps in usage direction.

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

• get_postsB
  3.1/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves a list with filtering and pagination but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether it's read-only, rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or what the return format looks like (e.g., JSON structure). This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

  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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get a list of posts') and adds essential qualifiers ('with optional filtering and pagination') without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

  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?

  Given the tool's moderate complexity (6 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and hints at parameter usage but lacks details on behavioral traits, return values, and sibling differentiation, making it minimally viable but with clear gaps.

  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 description mentions 'optional filtering and pagination,' which aligns with parameters like 'id', 'title', 'skip', and 'limit' in the schema. However, with 100% schema description coverage, the schema already fully documents all 6 parameters, so the description adds minimal value beyond reinforcing the general purpose of filtering and pagination.

  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 verb ('Get') and resource ('list of posts'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_talks' or 'get_videos' beyond mentioning posts specifically, so it lacks explicit sibling distinction.

  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 mentions 'optional filtering and pagination' but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_talks' or 'get_videos', nor does it specify any prerequisites or exclusions for usage.

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

• check_statusB
  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 carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool checks API status but doesn't add context such as what 'alive and responding' entails (e.g., response time, error handling), rate limits, or authentication needs. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no structured safety hints.

  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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any waste. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple tool, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

  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?

  Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on behavior, usage context, or output expectations, which could be helpful for an agent to understand the full scope of this health check tool.

  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 has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, earning a baseline score of 4 for not adding unnecessary information beyond 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 states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('check') and resource ('API'), explaining it verifies if the API is alive and responding. However, it doesn't distinguish this from its siblings (get_posts, get_talks, get_videos), which appear to be data retrieval tools, so it misses explicit 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 implies usage for health checks but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, timing, or comparison to sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer context without clear direction.

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