Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• jobscout_deduplicateA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety bar is lower. The description adds a crucial behavioral warning about untrusted content and prompt injection, which is not covered by annotations. No contradiction observed.

  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, front-loaded with the core behavior, and no redundant or filler content. The security warning is concise yet important, every sentence earns its place.

  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?

  No output schema is provided, so the description should explain what the tool returns. It does not; it only mentions 'returned job text' in passing but never states that the result is the deduplicated/merged job list, nor does it describe any conflict resolution or output format. Given the complex input schema, the description is incomplete.

  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?

  Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only mentions 'supplied JobScout records' without explaining how the jobs parameter is used, what 'normalize and merge' entails for the input, or any expected format beyond the schema. The description adds minimal value over 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 ('Normalize and merge') and resource ('supplied JobScout records'), clearly distinguishing this from siblings like search, classify, and list_sources. It also adds a scope constraint ('without contacting any provider').

  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 implies when to use the tool (processing already-supplied records offline) but does not explicitly contrast with siblings or provide 'when-not' conditions. It gives clear context but no alternative guidance.

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

• jobscout_search_jobsA
  4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already indicate a safe read operation (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false). The description adds valuable behavioral context: results are normalized/deduplicated, include source failures/provenance, and the warning that returned job text is untrusted third-party content and should never be followed. This goes beyond the annotations, though it doesn't cover auth or rate limits.

  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 concise sentences front-load the main action and result format, then add a critical safety note. No wasted words or redundancy.

  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 description covers core purpose, output characteristics, and a safety warning. However, it lacks parameter explanations and detailed return structure (e.g., pagination, error handling), and with no output schema, the agent must guess at the result format. It is adequate but has clear gaps.

  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 input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not mention any parameter (query, limit, sources, location, hours_old, remote_only). It provides no additional meaning beyond the schema's structural constraints, leaving agents to infer parameter purposes from names alone.

  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 action (search), the resource (enabled providers), and the distinctive output (normalized, deduplicated pool with source failures and provenance). This differentiates it from sibling tools like jobscout_list_sources (listing sources) or jobscout_classify_jobs (classifying jobs).

  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 phrase 'Search enabled providers' gives clear context for when to use this tool, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. The sibling names imply differentiation, but the description itself lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance.

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

• jobscout_classify_jobsA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  Beyond the annotations (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive), the description discloses determinism, lack of provider contact, keyword-derived nature, and the caveat that signals are unverified. This add significant behavioral context 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and includes only essential caveats. Every phrase adds value—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?

  The description covers purpose, behavior, and reliability caveats, which is solid for a read-only classifier. However, with no output schema, it does not explicitly describe the return format or the structure of the confidence indicator it mentions, leaving a small but notable gap.

  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?

  Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not compensate by explaining which job fields (title, description, tags, etc.) are used for classification or how they influence signals. The only hint is 'supplied jobs,' which is minimal and does not clarify the input structure or semantics.

  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 uses a specific verb ('identify') with a clear resource ('AI, agentic and Web3 domain signals') and scope ('in supplied jobs'). It clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like jobscout_search_jobs and jobscout_deduplicate by emphasizing deterministic local classification of provided jobs.

  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 clearly states when to use the tool (given jobs to classify) and adds important context: no provider contact and signals are only hints, not verified facts. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare with alternatives, so it falls short of full exclusion guidance.

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

• jobscout_list_sourcesA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is established. The description adds valuable context about what data is shown (providers, auth boundaries, enabled state, external sites), which goes beyond the annotations and gives the agent a clear expectation of the tool's output.

  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, tightly focused sentence that front-loads the main action ('Show') and then enumerates the specific elements returned. Every word contributes to the meaning, with no redundancy or extraneous detail.

  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, clear read-only intent), the description sufficiently covers what the tool does and what it returns. It includes details that help the agent understand the contents of the list, and the sibling names in the context reinforce its distinct role.

  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 parameters, so the schema fully covers the parameter space. Per the rubric, the baseline for 0 params is 4; the description does not need to explain any parameter semantics since there are none.

  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 uses the specific verb 'show' and identifies the resource as 'configured discovery providers', listing the exact details returned (authentication boundaries, enabled state, external sites). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on job search, classification, and deduplication.

  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 this tool is for viewing sources, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus the sibling tools, nor does it mention any exclusions or alternatives. The intended usage is inferable from the purpose, but the description provides no direct guidance.

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