Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• literature_searchA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: sources fan out in parallel, results are normalized/deduplicated/fused deterministically, and abstracts are capped at 3,000 characters. It also clarifies it never returns full text or citation graphs. No contradiction with annotations is present.

  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?

  Three sentences with front-loaded action and no filler. Each sentence adds distinct information: sources covered, processing behavior, and return limitations. Efficient and well-structured.

  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 the tool's complexity (multi-source search) and lack of output schema, the description covers the essential behavior: what sources, how results are fused, and output constraints. It does not mention pagination or error handling, but for a search tool this is reasonably complete. Could add a bit more on result structure but not required.

  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 71%, so most parameters already have descriptions. The description adds that the abstract cap defaults to 3,000 characters (already in schema) and explains source behavior, but does not add meaning for year_from/year_to or query syntax. It provides marginal value beyond what the schema already documents.

  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 it searches across seven named scholarly databases with specific actions like parallel fan-out and deterministic fusion. It does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools literature_sources and literature_get_fulltext, but the verb 'search' plus the source list makes the purpose unambiguous.

  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?

  Usage context is implied: use this tool to search literature. No explicit guidance on when to use this versus literature_sources or literature_get_fulltext, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The description does not mention that literature_get_fulltext should be used for full text, though the 'never full text' hint indirectly suggests it.

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

• literature_sourcesA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds useful context beyond that: the exact count (seven), inclusion of credential environment variables, and provider limitations. It doesn't describe output structure, but for a simple read-only tool this is sufficient credit.

  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, compact sentence that clearly enumerates the three items the tool lists. No wasted words or redundancy.

  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 (no parameters, no output schema, read-only), the description is complete: it tells exactly what will be listed (seven sources, credential env vars, provider limitations). An agent can invoke and interpret the result without further context.

  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 tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. With no parameters, the description doesn't need to explain parameter meanings; baseline is 4.

  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 a specific action ('List') and resource ('the seven supported literature sources'), and goes further by mentioning credential environment variables and provider limitations. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that search or fetch fulltext.

  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 (e.g., to see available sources before searching) but does not explicitly state when to use this versus siblings. It mentions credential env vars and limitations, which hints at configuration setup, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given.

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

• literature_get_fulltextA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already indicate read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context: the exact return fields (title, abstract, full_text, metadata), the truncated flag, and the not_found status for papers without open access. This goes beyond the 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and includes return details without redundancy. Every sentence earns its place.

  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 no output schema, the description sufficiently explains return values and the not_found case. It covers the main behavioral aspects needed for invocation, though it could mention error handling for invalid/missing identifiers.

  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 covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining that at least one of the three IDs is required and by mentioning the truncated flag, which relates to max_chars. This enriches parameter understanding.

  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 the specific action (fetch full text from Europe PMC) and resource (open-access subset), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like literature_search (search) and literature_sources (sources). It clearly identifies the expected identifier inputs.

  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 provides clear context for when to use the tool (when you have at least one of pmcid, pmid, or doi) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. The condition is clear enough for an agent to infer usage.

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