Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• pdf_infoA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description reinforces this with 'the file is never modified,' which is useful but largely redundant. It adds a hint that page numbers are reliable for later operations, but does not go much beyond annotation coverage.

  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 written sentences. The first states the output and scope, the second states safety and usage timing. No filler, and the most important information is front-loaded.

  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 read-only inspection tool with a single well-documented parameter and an output schema, the description is sufficient. It explains the tool's purpose, safety, and when to call it. It does not discuss error behavior, but that is a minor gap given the overall simplicity and available structured metadata.

  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 'path' parameter is already documented in the schema. The description adds the contextual phrase 'of a local PDF,' which lightly reinforces that the path must point to a local file, but it does not add substantive meaning beyond the 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 states a specific verb ('Report') and a precise resource scope: page count, per-page dimensions, and metadata of a local PDF. It distinguishes itself from the sibling merge/extract tools by focusing on inspection, so an agent can clearly tell it apart.

  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 explicitly advises calling the tool 'before merging or extracting' to validate page numbers, giving clear context for when it should be used. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the instruction is direct and actionable.

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

• extract_pdf_pagesA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already flag this as non-read-only and destructive, and the description adds useful behavioral detail: the original PDF is left untouched, pages are 1-based, and order is preserved. The overwrite behavior is not repeated in the description, but the overwrite parameter schema and destructiveHint annotation already cover that risk.

  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 a front-loaded purpose, a compact example of page syntax, and no filler. Every clause contributes: local file, original untouched, 1-based indexing, list/range support, and order preservation.

  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 4-parameter tool with an output schema and full schema descriptions, the description covers the essential operation, page-selection semantics, and non-destruction of the source. It does not cover edge cases such as invalid page numbers, but the schema and annotations carry the rest of the contract.

  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 coverage is 100% for all four parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by clarifying that page order is preserved, so '3,1' produces a two-page file in that order—a non-obvious behavioral detail for the pages parameter.

  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 and resource: 'Write a selection of pages from a local PDF into a new file'. It clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like merge_pdfs (combining PDFs) and pdf_info (inspecting PDFs) by describing the exact extraction operation.

  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 gives clear context: use this tool when you need selected pages from a local PDF written to an output file. It does not explicitly name when-not conditions or alternatives, so it stops short of the top tier, but the intended use is unmistakable.

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

• clean_textA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond this: it states the tool is fully offline, makes no network request, and clarifies that removeUrls strips every URL indiscriminately because the server cannot distinguish live from dead links. This gives agents an accurate mental model of side effects and limitations.

  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 long, front-loaded with the tool's core operations, and has no filler. The privacy/offline statement earns its place as an important behavioral constraint. Every clause contributes either operational scope or a safety guarantee.

  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?

  The definition is complete for the tool's complexity: all four parameters are documented in the schema, an output schema exists, and annotations cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the offline guarantee and optional transformations. No critical behavioral or usage gap remains for an agent to select and invoke this tool correctly.

  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 covers all parameters with descriptions, and the context signal reports 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by summarizing the parameter effects in behavior-oriented terms (e.g., 'collapse repeated spaces,' 'convert smart punctuation to ASCII,' 'remove URLs') and noting which transformations are default versus optional. This helps an agent anticipate the tool's default behavior without opening the 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 opens with 'Normalize messy text' and enumerates specific operations: collapsing repeated spaces, stripping invisible characters, unifying line endings, and optional transformations. This clearly distinguishes clean_text from its PDF-related siblings (pdf_info, merge_pdfs, extract_pdf_pages), which operate on binary documents rather than raw text.

  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 clearly implies when to use the tool: whenever raw, messy text needs normalization before further processing. It also adds a relevant constraint by emphasizing the tool runs entirely offline, which is useful context for privacy-sensitive data. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative text-processing tools, though none are provided among the siblings.

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

• merge_pdfsA
  4.7/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  Beyond the annotations, the description discloses important behavioral traits: the operation runs locally using pdf-lib, nothing is uploaded, no URL is fetched, and existing output files are preserved unless overwrite is true. This gives an agent meaningful safety and side-effect information that annotations alone do not provide.

  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: the primary action is stated first, followed by local-execution context and overwrite safety. Every sentence contributes useful information without repeating schema 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?

  Given the output schema and annotations, the description covers what an agent needs to call the tool correctly: input order, local execution, no upload, and protected overwrite behavior. It is sufficiently complete for a moderately simple file-merging 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?

  Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds value by clarifying that paths refer to local files, that no URL is fetched, and that overwrite behavior is guarded. Since it enriches the schema's parameter meaning with local-only semantics, it earns credit above the baseline.

  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 clear verb and resource: 'Combine two or more local PDFs into a single file, in the order given.' It unambiguously describes what the tool does and distinguishes it from siblings like pdf_info, extract_pdf_pages, and clean_text, all of which have different purposes.

  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 clearly states the intended use case: merging multiple local PDFs into one file. It also provides relevant context such as local execution and order preservation. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use the tool, but the core usage context is clear and the sibling tools are sufficiently distinct.

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