Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• vynly_searchA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Discloses no authentication needed, describes return format (three arrays with fields), and specifies behavior when q is empty (trending/featured). Missing details on pagination or rate limits, but still strong given no 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?

  Efficiently structured: purpose first, then bullet use cases, then return format. Every sentence adds unique value; no 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?

  Covers search modes, use cases, and result structure. Could clarify whether @ prefix also matches bio fields (implies yes from return fields). Slight ambiguity but overall sufficient for correct invocation.

  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?

  Single parameter 'q' already well-documented in schema with syntax examples. Description adds value by explaining empty query behavior and linking to use cases, but doesn't significantly extend schema info.

  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 the tool searches across users, tags, and posts, with specific verb 'Search Vynly'. It differentiates from sibling tools (vynly_post_*, vynly_read_feed) by focusing on discovery and lookup.

  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 lists four use cases (find user, discover tags, check hashtag, explore trending) and notes no authentication required. Does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, but context makes distinction clear.

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

• vynly_read_feedA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations, so description covers behavior: no auth required, public endpoint, returns specific fields, pagination via before cursor, reverse-chronological order. Does not mention rate limits but otherwise transparent.

  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?

  Every sentence adds value; starts with purpose, then use cases, then pagination details. Well-structured and concise without waste.

  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 no output schema, description fully explains return fields and pagination. Covers all needed details for a read tool with 2 parameters.

  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 100% (baseline 3). Description adds value by explaining pagination pattern and giving guidance for limit sizes (e.g., small for quick samples).

  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 reads the public feed in reverse-chronological order and lists specific use cases (a-d). It differentiates from sibling tools (posting/searching) by focusing on feed retrieval.

  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?

  Provides clear usage contexts (see posts, check own posts, sample style, paginate) and pagination pattern details. No explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, but sufficiently guides agent.

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

• vynly_post_imageA
  4.9/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  Describes server-side verification for AI provenance, immediate visibility, return fields, and declaredSource usage for missing metadata. No annotations provided, so description fully carries 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?

  Compact two-paragraph description with front-loaded purpose and usage. Every sentence adds value, no 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?

  Covers purpose, usage, key constraints, return fields, and env var requirements. For a tool with 9 params and no output schema, description provides sufficient context for correct invocation.

  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 100% with good descriptions, so baseline is 3. Description adds operational guidance like 'exactly one of...' and conditions for declaredSource, going beyond schema. No contradictions.

  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 publishes an AI-generated image as a permanent post on Vynly, and contrasts with sibling tool vynly_post_spark for temporary posts, providing clear differentiation.

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

  Usage Guidelines5/5

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

  Explicitly tells when to use this tool ('for the agent's main artifacts you want to keep') and when to use the alternative (vynly_post_spark). Also specifies requirement of exactly one image source and env var.

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

• vynly_post_sparkA
  4.9/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  Discloses all behavioral traits: auto-delete after 24 hours, image-only restriction, requirement for exactly one of three image inputs, reliance on Vynly agent token in VYNLY_TOKEN env var, and return of created spark object with id, url, and expiry timestamp. No annotations present, so description fully handles transparency.

  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?

  Highly concise and well-structured: first sentence captures purpose and key constraints, followed by usage guidance, parameter clarification, and return value description. Every sentence adds value without 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?

  Despite no output schema, the description specifies return fields (id, url, expiry timestamp) and authentication requirement. With 7 parameters fully described in schema, the description provides sufficient operational context for correct tool invocation.

  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 100% with detailed parameter descriptions. The tool description adds high-level context like the mutual exclusivity constraint (exactly one of imagePath/imageUrl/imageBase64) and clarifies that declaredSource is optional but recommended, which goes beyond the schema 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?

  Clearly states the tool publishes an AI-generated image as a 24-hour ephemeral 'spark' on Vynly, specifying it is image-only (no caption/tags). It distinguishes from sibling tool vynly_post_image by contrasting ephemeral vs permanent posts.

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

  Usage Guidelines5/5

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

  Explicitly provides when to use: for experiments, work-in-progress, or content that doesn't need permanent timeline. Directly recommends alternative vynly_post_image for permanent posts, offering clear guidance on tool selection.

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