Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• scrape_pageA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It mentions using Playwright for JS rendering and describes the return structure, but does not disclose potential side effects, authentication needs, or error handling behaviors.

  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 well-structured with a clear purpose sentence followed by an Args list and Returns. Every sentence provides necessary information, and it is appropriately sized without fluff.

  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 includes return fields. It covers parameter details and the core scraping behavior. However, it lacks error handling or timeout information. Overall, it is fairly complete for the tool's 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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description compensates by explaining each parameter's purpose (e.g., 'wait_for' as Playwright wait state, 'selector' as CSS selector). It adds meaning beyond the schema, though some descriptions are minimal.

  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 scrapes any SPA or JS-rendered webpage and returns content. It distinguishes from siblings like screenshot_page (screenshots) and extract_api_endpoints (extracts endpoints) by focusing on content extraction.

  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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings. It lacks any 'when not to use' or alternative suggestions, requiring the agent to infer usage from the tool name and description.

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

• scrape_and_seedA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the required database table structure and return format, but lacks details on error conditions, idempotency, or whether existing data is overwritten.

  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 reasonably concise, with a brief summary followed by parameter definitions. It includes necessary details like the database table schema, which is valuable context, but could be slightly more compact without losing clarity.

  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 four parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides the database schema and return format, and explains each parameter. However, it lacks details on error handling and preconditions, which would make it more 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?

  Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description compensates by explaining each parameter clearly: url as 'URL of the API documentation page', db_path as 'Absolute path to the SQLite database file', source_name with examples, and site_type as an optional override. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema titles.

  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 'Scrape API documentation and seed a finanal-style SQLite database directly', using specific verbs and resources. It distinguishes from siblings by combining scraping and seeding, while siblings like 'extract_api_endpoints' only extract and 'scrape_page' only scrape.

  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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings. The purpose of combining scraping and seeding is implied, but no direct guidance or exclusions are provided, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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

• screenshot_pageA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations, but description discloses return format (saved_path and base64). Does not mention side effects, but operation is read-only by nature.

  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?

  Very concise, front-loaded purpose, uses bullet points for args and returns. No unnecessary text.

  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?

  Covers functionality, parameters, and return values adequately. No output schema, but description explains return object. Complete for a simple 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 0%, but description provides clear explanations for both parameters (url, full_page) including default for full_page. Adds meaning beyond schema types.

  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?

  Clearly states it takes a full-page screenshot of a URL for visual debugging. Distinct from siblings like scrape_page (text extraction) and extract_api_endpoints.

  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?

  Explicitly mentions 'for visual debugging', implying use case. Does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but context is clear.

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

• extract_api_endpointsA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explains the auto-detection behavior and return structure. It does not mention edge cases like invalid URLs or unrecognized site types, but for a read-only extraction tool, the main behavior is well-covered.

  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 structured with purpose, note about auto-detection, and clearly labeled args and returns. It is reasonably concise, though the return structure could be considered slightly redundant.

  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 tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main aspects: what it does, how to use, and what output to expect. It lacks error handling details but is otherwise 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?

  Schema coverage is 0%, but the description provides clear meaning for both parameters: url (the documentation page URL) and site_type (with explicit allowed values to force a specific extractor). This adds significant 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 extracts structured API endpoint data from API documentation sites. It distinguishes from sibling tools like scrape_page and screenshot_page, which are for general scraping and screenshots.

  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 specifies that it works on API documentation sites and can auto-detect site types or be overridden, providing clear usage context. It does not explicitly state when not to use or compare to siblings, but the sibling names imply alternatives.

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