Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• linksA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description adds meaningful behavior: it prefers sitemap/RSS/Atom feeds to minimize impact and falls back to extracting in-page links. This discloses the tool's operational strategy without contradicting 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?

  A single sentence that front-loads the purpose, mentions the low-impact nature, and describes the strategy. There is no filler or redundancy.

  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 simple two-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description explains the core behavior (feed-first fallback to in-page) and impact level. It could mention output shape, but that's not critical for a list-returning tool.

  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 schema already provides 100% coverage for both parameters (url and filter) with clear descriptions. The tool description does not add parameter-specific context, maintaining the baseline for schema-heavy tools.

  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?

  Title clearly states 'List links from a page', and description specifies 'link discovery' with a concrete strategy (prefers sitemap/RSS/Atom, else in-page). This distinguishes it from siblings fetch and screenshot.

  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?

  Description conveys clear usage context ('low-impact', feed-first strategy) implying when to use it for light-weight link harvesting. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, so it stops short of a 5.

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

• fetchA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  Even with readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, the description adds substantial behavioral context: robots.txt compliance, rate limiting, caching behavior, diff responses on refetch, and automatic PDF handling. This goes well beyond what annotations convey and fully discloses side effects and state handling.

  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 compact and front-loaded with the main purpose. It packs a lot of information into four sentences without fluff, though the use of semicolons and slashes makes it slightly dense. Every sentence contributes value, but it could be broken into a list for better scannability.

  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?

  With no output schema, the description explains primary return types (Markdown, outline, screenshot) and cache states (unchanged/diff). It covers key behaviors like PDF handling and mode selection. Missing details about error responses or rate limit headers, but for a fetch tool this is fairly complete given the 7 parameters and sibling 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?

  All parameters have schema descriptions, so the baseline is high. The description adds extra meaning to mode (auto/markdown/outline/screenshot) and explains caching behavior that affects force_full and max_tokens, enriching beyond the schema. It does not detail page, section, or selector semantics, but the schema already covers those.

  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: 'Fetch a web page as Markdown' with specific details like 'low-impact, token-efficient' and supported modes. It distinguishes from the screenshot sibling by explicitly listing screenshot as a mode, and links is not mentioned but the core purpose is 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?

  The description implies use cases through features like caching and diff responses for repeated fetches, and 'token-efficient' suggests when token economy matters. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of the sibling 'screenshot' or 'links' tools, nor does it provide exclusions or alternatives.

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

• screenshotA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already indicate read-only and open-world behavior, so the bar for adding value is lowered. The description goes beyond annotations by detailing built-in robots.txt compliance, rate limiting, caching, and the return format (tiled PNG screenshots). These specifics help the agent anticipate external interactions and constraints, though it doesn't mention failure modes or auth needs.

  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 three concise sentences. The first sentence front-loads the purpose ('For explicit visual inspection'), the second explains the mechanism, and the third lists key behavioral features. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

  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?

  Despite having no output schema, the description explicitly states the return format ('tiled PNG screenshots'). It also covers web-access constraints (robots.txt compliance, rate limiting) and caching behavior. Combined with the comprehensively described parameters and informative annotations, the description provides a complete picture for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

  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 input schema provides complete descriptions for all four parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description itself does not add parameter-level detail, but it does mention 'tiled' which indirectly relates to the width and fullPage parameters. However, since the schema already explains each parameter sufficiently, the description offers no additional semantic value 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 clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb and resource: 'Renders the page with a headless browser and returns tiled PNG screenshots.' It also frames it as 'For explicit visual inspection,' distinguishing it from sibling tools like fetch and links that handle content extraction. The purpose is unambiguous and differentiated.

  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 opening phrase 'For explicit visual inspection' provides clear context on when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or discuss when not to use it, only implying that other tools are better for non-visual tasks. Lacking explicit exclusions, it stops one step short of a perfect score.

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