Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• recall_statsA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds significant behavioral context by defining the staleness threshold (older than 2 days) and the exact return shape, which goes beyond 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 concise: three sentences with front-loaded purpose, a clear definition of 'stale', and a compact return schema. No redundant phrases or unnecessary details.

  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 zero-parameter stats tool, the description is fully complete. It explains what it does, the freshness definition, and the return structure. No additional context is needed given the output is also documented in the description.

  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?

  There are zero parameters, so the schema covers everything. The description adds value by explaining the output fields (chunks, newest_indexed_at, stale) and their meaning, which is not present in the input 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 clearly states the tool reports memory size and staleness, using specific verb 'report' and defined resource ('memory'). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on statistics/freshness rather than search, indexing, or forgetting.

  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 frames usage explicitly: 'Report how much memory exists and whether it is stale (freshness check).' This gives clear context for when to use the tool, though it does not mention when not to use it or name alternatives.

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

• recall_indexA
  4.6/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  The description goes well beyond the annotations by detailing re-indexing behavior: 'Re-indexing a file REPLACES its chunks completely (safe to re-run after edits; a shrunk file leaves no stale chunks behind)'. It also discloses path restrictions and pre-embedding refusals based on RECALL_INDEX_MAX_FILES/MAX_BYTES. These are important behavioral traits that the annotations (idempotentHint, destructiveHint) only hint at, making the transparency robust.

  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 clear sections (main purpose, behavior notes, args, returns) and uses bullet points for key behaviors. It is moderately lengthy but every sentence adds value, covering re-indexing safety, path limits, and return format. It is not overly verbose; the length is justified by the need to explain important edge cases.

  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 presence of an output schema (returning {files, chunks, message}), the description appropriately mentions the return format. It also covers constraints (path confinement, max files/bytes), re-indexing behavior, and the file pattern for directories. The tool's complexity is modest, and the description fully covers the behavioral and contextual aspects needed for correct invocation.

  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 only parameter 'path' has a minimal schema title without description (schema coverage 0%). The tool description compensates by explicitly explaining: 'path: a file or directory path (**/*.md is indexed for directories)'. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema, clarifying that directories index markdown files recursively. While it doesn't detail file path patterns, it provides essential context.

  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 begins with 'Index a markdown file or folder into the agent's memory so it can be recalled later', which uses a specific verb ('Index') and a clear resource (markdown files/folders). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like recall_search, recall_forget, and recall_stats, which serve different purposes. The scope and intent are immediately unambiguous.

  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 implies when to use the tool (when you want to store file/folder content for later recall) and provides practical guidance on re-indexing, path confinement, and size limits. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the context is clear. Given the sibling tools are functionally distinct, the usage context is adequately conveyed.

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

• recall_forgetA
  4.8/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  Beyond annotations (destructiveHint=true), the description adds valuable behavioral details: deletion is scoped to 'this server's own tenant,' missing sources are reported in `sources_not_found` rather than silently counted as removed, and the return structure is explicitly documented. This enriches the agent's understanding of side effects and error handling. No contradiction with 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 concise and well-structured: a bolded one-line lead, a paragraph for usage context, then Args/Returns sections. Every sentence contributes to understanding, with no fluff. Key warnings (IRREVERSIBLE) are front-loaded.

  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 simplicity (one parameter, no nested objects) and presence of an output schema (per context), the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, usage context, parameter semantics, behavioral side effects, and return structure. It is fully self-contained and complete.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters5/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The input schema only defines `sources` as an array of strings with zero descriptive coverage. The description fully compensates: 'sources: one or more source values to forget, exactly as they appear in `recall_search` hits (the `source` field).' This clarifies the array nature, required format, and source of values, exceeding schema information.

  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: 'Permanently delete indexed memory for the given source(s). IRREVERSIBLE.' It uses a specific verb (delete/forget) and resource (indexed memory), distinguishing it from read/search siblings like recall_search and recall_index. The phrase 'right-to-erasure path' adds further specific intent.

  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 provides clear when-to-use context: 'use it to make the agent forget a memory that should no longer be recalled (e.g. it indexed something it should not have retained).' It also hints at the workflow by referencing `recall_search` for obtaining source values, implying search is for discovery and this tool for deletion. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives for adding/indexing, so a perfect 5 is not warranted.

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

• recall_evidenceA
  5/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  Even though annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, the description adds crucial behavioral details: trust-layer filtering, retrieval order, empty bundle on abstain, the non-instruction nature of data, and a detailed exception type with retry semantics. No contradiction with 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 long but well-structured with clear sections (Args, Returns, Raises) and front-loaded purpose. Every sentence adds value, especially given the need to explain complex behavior and a 0% schema coverage for 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 (decision logic, clamping, exception handling), the description is complete. It covers parameters, returns, exceptions, and edge cases like abstain. The output schema exists, but the description provides additional context about the decision and lineage fields.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters5/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema coverage is 0%, but the description compensates fully with an Args section explaining each parameter, including defaults and clamping behavior for k and max_items. It adds semantic meaning beyond the raw schema fields.

  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 opens with a specific verb plus resource: 'Get memory as CITABLE EVIDENCE plus the exact prompt to answer it with.' It explicitly contrasts with recall_search, stating to use this instead when answering from memory, which distinguishes it from siblings.

  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?

  It gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this instead of `recall_search` when you are about to ANSWER from memory rather than just consult it.' It also specifies behavior for abstain decisions and clarifies that the server runs no generator, making the tool's role clear.

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

• recall_searchA
  5/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  The description goes far beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent) by disclosing the trust verdict system, abstention semantics, confidence calibration, provenance indexing, validity fields, and the clamping of k. It also details the RetrievalOverloaded error, including that it is retryable, free, and changes no state. This rich behavioral context is highly valuable for correct invocation and result interpretation.

  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 clear sections for Args, Returns, and Raises. The core action is front-loaded in the first sentence. While lengthy, every sentence contributes either to usage guidance, parameter semantics, or behavioral expectations, making it efficient for the complexity of the tool. It is not redundant with the schema or annotations.

  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, the description covers all necessary aspects: usage context, parameter details, return payload structure, error modes, and safety guarantees (e.g., 'nothing was embedded and no state changed'). It is self-contained and leaves no significant gaps for an agent to infer or guess.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters5/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  With schema_description_coverage at 0%, the description is the sole source of parameter meaning. It thoroughly explains 'query' as natural language, 'source' as an optional filter, and 'k' as a max hits with the default and clamping behavior under cost profiles. This fully compensates for the missing schema descriptions and adds critical context about k's dynamic adjustment.

  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: 'Search the agent's OWN memory before acting, and get actionable guidance.' The verb 'search' and resource 'agent's OWN memory' are specific, and it distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on recall/search versus other memory operations. The context 'before proposing an idea, forming a hypothesis, or repeating past work' further clarifies its unique role.

  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 explicitly instructs when to call the tool ('Call this before proposing an idea, forming a hypothesis, or repeating past work') and provides post-call guidance on interpreting hits, including the abstention case ('say you don't know instead of answering from the hits'). It also explains the k parameter clamping under different process profiles, helping the agent set expectations. No explicit 'when not to use' is stated, but the strong 'call this before' guidance suffices.

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