Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get_ro_reference_summaryB
  3.4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It states that the tool returns a summary (not full page) and specifies the allowed sources (iRO Wiki or Fandom, vanilla reference). However, it does not disclose behaviors like error handling, caching, or whether exact title matching is required for the result.

  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 extremely concise: a single sentence plus two parameter explanations. Every word is functional, and the structure immediately communicates the tool's core purpose and key parameter constraints without any filler.

  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?

  The tool is simple with two parameters and has an output schema, so return values don't need explanation. However, the description is missing usage guidance relative to sibling tools, and there are no annotations to cover behavioral aspects like whether this is a read-only operation or what happens on lookup failure.

  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 has zero description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does by explaining that source_id accepts 'irowiki' or 'fandom' and that title must be the exact article title. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema, though it could benefit from examples or formatting notes.

  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 the tool provides a summary ('Resumen') of an RO article from iRO Wiki or Fandom. While it doesn't explicitly name sibling tools, the specific mention of 'iRO Wiki o Fandom' and 'vanilla' distinguishes it from generic wiki tools, giving it a specific verb+resource+scope.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any scenarios, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like get_ro_reference_page or search_ro_reference. Usage is only implied by the purpose.

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

• get_wiki_summaryA
  3.7/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'resumen legible' but does not describe error behavior, read-only nature, permissions, or what happens for non-existent titles, leaving significant behavioral aspects undisclosed.

  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 extremely concise, consisting of a single lead sentence and one parameter explanation. Every word contributes value, with the example adding immediate clarity without unnecessary verbosity.

  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 one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the core purpose and parameter semantics. It lacks usage guidance and behavioral details, but the presence of an output schema partially compensates for return value documentation. Overall, it is adequate but not fully 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 description enriches the title parameter by stating it must be an exact title and providing a concrete example ('Set de Equipamiento'). This adds meaning far beyond the schema's minimal 'Title' label, fully compensating for the 0% schema description coverage.

  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 it provides a readable summary of a Tenarius RO Wiki article, using a specific verb ('Resumen') and resource ('artículo de la Wiki'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_wiki_page by implying a condensed, human-readable output.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_wiki_page or search_wiki. The description only states what the tool does, offering no explicit context or exclusions.

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

• get_wiki_pageA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral aspects. It only states that the output is complete wikitext, but does not mention error handling, required permissions, or any quirks. This is a minimal disclosure for a retrieval tool, leaving significant ambiguity.

  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 extremely concise: one sentence stating the purpose plus a one-line parameter explanation. Every word adds value, and the structure is clean and 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 single-parameter tool with an output schema present, the description is mostly complete. It tells what the tool does, what it returns, and what the parameter is. The lack of explicit usage guidance is a minor gap, but overall it is sufficient for this level of complexity.

  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 description explicitly documents the 'title' parameter as 'Título exacto del artículo' (exact article title), which adds clarity beyond the schema's generic 'title' string. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description successfully compensates for the missing parameter detail.

  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 'Wikitext completo de un artículo de la Wiki de Tenarius RO' (complete wikitext of an article), which clearly identifies the verb (get) and resource (full wikitext). The word 'completo' distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_wiki_summary, which returns a summary.

  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 is implied: the tool returns complete wikitext, so one would use it when full source markup is needed. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance, leaving the agent to infer context from sibling tool names.

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

• get_ro_reference_pageA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Behavioral transparency is partially addressed: the description informs the agent that it returns 'complete wikitext' and that the title must be exact, while also constraining source_id to 'irowiki' or 'fandom'. However, it omits information about error handling, authentication, or other potential side effects, leaving gaps in the behavioral disclosure.

  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 exceptionally concise: one sentence stating the tool's purpose followed by a minimal argument list. Every element contributes directly to understanding, with no wasted words or redundant information.

  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 getter tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential context: the return type, allowed sources, and the exact-title requirement. It lacks only explicit usage guidance relative to sibling tools, which is a minor gap given the tool's straightforward nature.

  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 description explicitly defines both parameters: source_id is limited to 'irowiki' or 'fandom', and title must be the exact article title. Since the schema provides no descriptions for these parameters, this textual explanation fully compensates and adds critical meaning.

  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 that the tool retrieves the full wikitext of a Ragnarok Online reference page from either irowiki or fandom. It specifies the specific resource and the action, distinguishing it from sibling tools that provide summaries or search results.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_ro_reference_summary or search_ro_reference. Usage is only implied by the stated purpose, with no exclusions or alternative context.

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

• search_wikiA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only search operation and provides example queries, but it does not disclose any permission requirements, behavior on empty results, or other side effects. The safety profile is inferred from the verb 'Busca' rather than explicitly stated.

  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 well-structured: a clear purpose statement, then usage examples, then parameter definitions. Each sentence adds value without redundancy. It is front-loaded with the most critical information first.

  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 search tool with an output schema (which presumably covers return structure), the description covers purpose, usage, and parameter semantics. It does not mention search behavior details (e.g., full-text vs title-only, sorting), but these are not essential for correct invocation. The overall context is sufficient.

  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 has no parameter descriptions, so the tool description fully compensates. It explains 'query' with examples ('fighting set', 'fisherman') and 'limit' with a range (1-20), adding meaningful constraints beyond the schema's default value and type. This is exactly what the dimension rewards.

  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 ('Busca' = search) and resource ('artículos en la Wiki de Tenarius RO'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by specifying the wiki's scope (private server content) and gives concrete examples (Oficios, Sets, Tenarius Coin), making its 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 Guidelines4/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description explicitly says 'Usar para' (use for) and lists relevant content types, giving clear when-to-use guidance. However, it does not mention when not to use or explicitly contrast with alternative search tools like search_ro_reference or search_ro_web, which would have strengthened the guidance.

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

• get_adventurer_profileA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility. It discloses that data is '100% locales' and the exact path (~/.config/tenarius-wiki-mcp/), and explicitly states 'No se envían a internet' (not sent to the internet). This provides a strong privacy/behavioral profile, though it doesn't detail the return structure or potential side effects.

  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 short, front-loaded sentences. The main action is stated first, followed by essential privacy and usage details. No redundant words.

  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 0-parameter tool with an output schema, this description is complete. It covers what the tool does, why to use it, where data comes from, and privacy implications. No missing critical information.

  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 0 parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and the schema already reflects this. No additional parameter information is necessary.

  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 it 'Lee el perfil del aventurero configurado localmente' (reads the locally configured adventurer profile), using a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from the sibling wiki/reference search tools, which focus on external content rather than the local profile.

  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 explicit usage context: 'Usar para personalizar builds, farming y objetivos del jugador' (use to customize builds, farming, and player goals). It does not list exclusions or alternative tools, but the purpose is clear enough that the agent can infer when to use it.

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

• search_ro_webA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the two-step process (wiki lookup + optional Brave Search based on BRAVE_API_KEY presence) and notes that each result indicates server, era, and Tenarius applicability. This gives an agent useful expectations about result richness and conditional behavior, going beyond a simple 'search' stub.

  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 one-sentence purpose, numbered process steps, a note about result metadata, and an Args list. Every element earns its place, and the front-loaded purpose ensures quick understanding. It uses appropriate formatting for an LLM to parse easily.

  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 (2 simple parameters, output schema provided, no annotations), the description is largely complete. It covers scope, sources, conditional behavior, and parameters. It does not discuss potential external dependencies (e.g., network availability, API rate limits) or the exact output structure, but the presence of an output schema mitigates the latter. A small gap remains in not specifying when to prefer this over sibling tools.

  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 has 0% description coverage, but the description fully compensates by defining both parameters: 'query: Tema a investigar' (topic to investigate) and 'limit: Límite para búsqueda web Brave (1-10)' (limit for Brave search, with range). This adds meaning beyond the raw schema, especially for 'limit', clarifying its purpose and allowed values.

  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 ('Búsqueda web amplia' - broad web search) with a clear resource scope (Ragnarok Online, Pre-Renewal / Ep. ≤ 13.2) and explicitly lists the sources consulted (iRO Wiki, Fandom, optional Brave Search). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_wiki or search_ro_reference, which target specific repositories.

  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 context: this is a broad web search tool that consults multiple external sources, contrasting with more focused sibling tools. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of alternatives or provide exclusions (e.g., 'use search_wiki for wiki-specific queries'). The label 'amplia' implies suitability for broad, cross-source queries, which is helpful but not explicit.

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

• search_ro_referenceA
  4.6/5.0
  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 discloses key behaviors: prioritization of Pre-Renewal context (~Episode 13.2) and that each result includes server, estimated era, and a Tenarius verification flag. It does not cover failure modes or authentication, but for a read-only search tool this is sufficient behavioral disclosure.

  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 well-structured: two sentences for context and an Args block. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy, and the key information is 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?

  For a search tool with an output schema, the description covers sources, prioritization, output fields, and parameter meaning. It mentions the Tenarius verification aspect, which adds domain context. No significant gaps remain.

  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's Args section fully explains both parameters: query with concrete examples ('Professor skills', 'Assassin Cross', 'MVP Amon Ra') and limit as 'Resultados por fuente (1-10)' with a clear range and unit. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema, making parameter semantics excellent.

  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 purpose: 'Busca información de Ragnarok Online en wikis de referencia' with a specific verb ('Busca') and resource (RO reference wikis). It distinguishes itself from siblings by naming specific wikis (iRO Wiki, Fandom) and mentioning the Pre-Renewal prioritization, which is unique among related tools.

  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 context for when to use the tool: when you need RO reference wiki results with Pre-Renewal priority. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like search_wiki or search_ro_web, so it lacks explicit exclusionary guidance. This is a minor gap.

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