Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• jstage_search_journalsA
  3.5/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations exist, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It explains matching criteria and a useful workflow, but it does not disclose output shape, pagination behavior, what happens when no parameters are provided, or read-only status. This is a meaningful gap for a tool with no 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?

  Two tightly scoped sentences; the main purpose is front-loaded and the second sentence provides workflow value without fluff. Every word contributes.

  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 6 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is thin. An agent knows why to call it but not what result shape to expect or how optional parameters affect behavior. This is insufficient for a complete contextual picture.

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

  Parameters2/5

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

  The description restates name/ISSN search criteria, but those are already present in the input schema. With only 50% schema coverage, it should add meaning for lang, count, start, and publication_type; it does not. The added value beyond the schema is minimal.

  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 states a specific verb (search), a resource (journals indexed in J-STAGE), and search criteria (name or ISSN) in a single clear sentence. It also disambiguates from sibling tools by noting this is the prerequisite workflow step before article search or volume listing.

  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 gives concrete workflow context: use this tool to find an ISSN/code before searching articles or listing volumes. It does not explicitly name alternatives or list exclusion cases, but the intended usage is clear.

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

• jstage_list_volumesA
  3.7/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It does frame the operation as retrieving a list, which implies a read-only action, but it says nothing about pagination, ordering, error behavior, or identifier precedence. Basic but not deeply transparent.

  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?

  Two short sentences, purpose first and prerequisites second, with no filler. The description is easy to scan and every sentence earns its place.

  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 6-parameter list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description plus schema is workable: the identifier requirement is stated and the remaining parameters are visible in the schema. However, pagination behavior, return shape, and how to prioritize issn vs journal_name vs journal_code are left unstated, leaving a moderate gap.

  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 the important rule that at least one of issn, journal_name, or journal_code must be supplied, even though the schema lists zero required parameters. With only 50% schema description coverage, it does not directly explain count/start/lang, though those are partially self-documenting via defaults, enums, and min/max.

  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 names a concrete operation — retrieving the list of volumes/issues for a specific J-STAGE journal — so the agent can understand the core purpose. It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling search/fetch tools, but it never explicitly contrasts itself with them, so it stops short of a 5.

  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 sets an explicit operational prerequisite: the caller must supply a journal name, ISSN, or journal code. This tells the agent when the tool is applicable, though it does not mention alternatives or exclusion cases such as using jstage_search_journals first to find an identifier.

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

• jstage_search_articlesA
  4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

  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 usefully discloses that the tool returns only metadata (title, author, abstract, DOI, link) and never full-text content, which is a non-obvious behavioral constraint. It could additionally note pagination or sort behavior, but those are partly encoded in the start/count parameters.

  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?

  Two sentences with no fluff: the first fronts the action and filter dimensions, the second delivers the critical metadata-only limitation. Every sentence adds distinct value.

  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 an 11-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description plus a fully documented schema provides adequate guidance: overall purpose, accepted filter families, and the central limitation on returned content. A slight gap is the lack of an explicit mention of result list/pagination behavior, but the start/count parameters already hint at this.

  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 every parameter already has its own meaningful Persian description. The tool description adds only a high-level grouping of search dimensions and the metadata caveat, which is useful but does not need to compensate for undocumentd 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 states a specific action ('search'), a specific resource (J-STAGE articles), and the available filter dimensions (keyword, author, journal, year range). It also distinguishes the tool's scope from full-text retrieval by explicitly noting that only metadata is returned.

  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 gives clear context about searching Japanese scientific/technical articles and the metadata-only limitation, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when NOT to use this tool. The intended use is implied rather than contrasted with sibling tools like jstage_fetch_article_abstract_and_references.

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

• jstage_fetch_article_abstract_and_referencesA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It honestly discloses that extraction is best-effort, works only for some publications, is based on an unofficial text version, and returns a clear message on failure. It doesn't describe the exact output format, but the main behavioral limitations are well covered.

  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 compact and front-loaded: it states the purpose, then the key limitation and fallback, with no redundant filler. Every sentence earns its place and the warning is clearly marked.

  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 that there is no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns (abstract and part of the reference list) and what happens when data is unavailable. It doesn't specify the exact structure of returned references, but for a focused fetch tool this is sufficient and the fallback guidance completes the picture.

  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%, and both parameters already have meaningful descriptions. The tool description adds workflow context but little additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

  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 names a specific action (extract abstract and references) on a specific resource (a J-STAGE article identified by a link). It also ties the input to jstage_search_articles, which clearly differentiates this fetch tool from the search/list sibling tools.

  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 says to use a link obtained from jstage_search_articles, establishing a clear workflow. It also states when the tool will not work (non-open-access publications) and instructs the agent to fall back to the article link/DOI directly, which is an explicit alternative.

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