Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• api.listTagsB
  3.1/5.0
  Behavior2/5

  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 mentions the tool lists tags with operation counts, but doesn't describe whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, what the output format looks like, or any rate limits. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

  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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without any fluff. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, with every word contributing to understanding the purpose.

  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?

  Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the return values look like (e.g., format of tags and operation counts), behavioral traits, or usage context relative to siblings. For a tool in this environment, more detail is needed to be fully helpful.

  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 zero parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the absence of inputs. The description adds no parameter-specific information, which is appropriate here. A baseline of 4 is applied since no parameters exist, and the description doesn't need to compensate for gaps.

  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 verb ('List') and resource ('API tags') with specific scope ('from Swagger/OpenAPI'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'api.searchEndpoints' or 'api.request', which prevents a perfect score.

  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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'api.searchEndpoints' or 'api.request', nor does it mention any prerequisites or contextual constraints. It only states what the tool does, not when it's appropriate.

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

• browser.navigateA
  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 full burden and discloses key behavioral traits: it requires a Chrome extension connection and navigates the active tab. However, it lacks details on error handling, timeouts, or what happens if the URL is invalid, leaving gaps for a mutation tool.

  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 appropriately sized with two sentences: the first states purpose and usage, the second notes requirements. The route reference note is somewhat extraneous but not wasteful, keeping it efficient and front-loaded.

  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?

  Given no annotations, no output schema, and a simple parameter, the description covers purpose and prerequisites adequately. However, for a navigation tool that mutates browser state, it could better explain behavioral aspects like success indicators or common errors to enhance completeness.

  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?

  Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the 'url' parameter fully. The description does not add meaning beyond this, such as examples of valid URLs or constraints not in the schema, meeting the baseline for high 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 the specific action ('navigates') and resource ('current active browser tab to a new URL'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like browser.screenshot or ui.interact by focusing on URL navigation rather than visual capture or UI interaction.

  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 provides explicit usage contexts ('automated testing, navigation flows, or redirecting to specific pages') and a prerequisite ('Requires Chrome extension to be connected'), but does not specify when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings like api.request for non-browser navigation.

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

• ui.interactA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries full burden and provides good behavioral context: it discloses automatic behaviors (scrolling into view, waiting for visibility/enabled), fallback mechanism (CDP fallback), and supported selector types. However, it doesn't mention error handling, performance implications, or what happens with invalid inputs.

  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 efficiently structured in two sentences: the first states purpose and capabilities, the second adds behavioral context. Every phrase adds value, though it could be slightly more front-loaded with the core purpose.

  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?

  For a complex 5-parameter tool with nested objects and no output schema, the description provides adequate but incomplete context. It covers the main functionality and some behaviors, but lacks details on return values, error cases, and comprehensive usage scenarios that would help an agent fully understand tool invocation.

  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?

  Schema description coverage is 60%, and the description adds minimal parameter semantics beyond the schema. It mentions 'semantic selectors' mapping to the 'target.by' enum and lists actions matching the 'action' enum, but doesn't explain parameter interactions or provide examples. The baseline 3 is appropriate given moderate schema 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 the tool's purpose: 'Interact with the active browser tab using semantic selectors' with a specific list of supported actions (click, type, select, etc.). It distinguishes from siblings like browser.navigate (navigation) or ui.inspectElement (inspection only) by emphasizing interaction capabilities.

  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 usage context ('active browser tab', 'when needed' for CDP fallback) but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like ui.inspectElement or browser.console.read. No clear exclusions or prerequisites are provided.

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

• browser.screenshotA
  4/5.0
  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 effectively describes the tool's behavior: capturing the current tab, saving to a structured path, returning an image, and requiring DevTools connection. This covers key operational aspects, though it doesn't mention potential limitations like file format, size, or error conditions.

  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 perfectly concise with two sentences that each serve a clear purpose: the first explains what the tool does, and the second states the prerequisite. There's no wasted language or unnecessary information.

  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?

  Given the tool's moderate complexity (screenshot functionality with a prerequisite) and no annotations or output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the core purpose and requirement but lacks details about the structured path format, image characteristics, or error handling that would be helpful for an AI agent.

  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 100% description coverage, but the parameter description ('any string (ignored)') is confusing and unhelpful. The tool description doesn't add any meaningful clarification about why this parameter exists or how it should be used, failing to compensate for the schema's poor documentation.

  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 specific action ('Capture current browser tab'), resource ('browser tab'), and outcome ('saves to structured path and returns image'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like browser.navigate or browser.console.read by focusing on screenshot functionality.

  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 this tool ('Capture current browser tab') and includes a prerequisite ('Requires extension connection with DevTools open'). However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among sibling tools.

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

• api.requestA
  4.1/5.0
  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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the authorization token mechanism and that it's a 'live HTTP request,' but doesn't cover important behavioral aspects like error handling, timeout behavior, rate limits, or what happens when the request fails. The description adds some context but leaves significant gaps.

  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 and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first clause. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential context about authorization and usage guidelines without any fluff 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?

  For a 5-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is somewhat incomplete. While it covers the basic purpose and usage context, it lacks information about response format, error handling, and other behavioral aspects that would be important for an API request tool. The 100% schema coverage helps, but the description itself could provide more contextual completeness.

  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?

  With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema descriptions. It mentions authorization tokens generally but doesn't provide additional context about the parameters themselves.

  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 purpose: 'Execute a live HTTP request to API_BASE_URL' with specific details about authorization tokens and browser storage. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'api.searchEndpoints' by being the execution tool rather than a discovery tool.

  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?

  The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool: 'Use after api.searchEndpoints or for known endpoints.' This gives clear context about the intended workflow and distinguishes it from other tools that don't involve API requests.

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

• api.searchEndpointsA
  4.1/5.0
  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 of behavioral disclosure. It describes the search behavior ('semantic', 'returning essential info') and fallback suggestion for missing schemas, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or response format. It provides basic context but misses key operational traits.

  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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence and adds a critical usage note in the second. Both sentences earn their place by providing essential information without redundancy or fluff, making it highly efficient.

  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?

  Given 6 parameters with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers purpose and guidelines well but lacks behavioral details like response structure or error cases, which are important for a search tool with no annotations or output schema.

  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?

  Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all 6 parameters. The description adds no specific parameter semantics beyond implying a search query is needed, which is already covered in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation.

  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 purpose with specific verbs ('search', 'returning') and resources ('API documentation', 'essential info'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'api.listTags' (tag listing) and 'api.request' (live testing). It specifies the semantic search nature and what information is returned.

  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?

  The description explicitly states when to use this tool ('Semantic API documentation search') and when to use an alternative ('If schemas are missing, suggests using api.request for live testing'), providing clear guidance on tool selection versus the sibling 'api.request'.

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

• browser.console.readA
  4.4/5.0
  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 effectively describes what the tool captures (JS errors/warnings/logs, browser-generated network errors) and what it returns (formatted summary + stats). However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like whether it clears logs after reading, requires specific browser state, or has 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?

  The description is perfectly concise with two sentences that each earn their place. The first sentence states the core functionality and return value, while the second provides crucial sibling differentiation. There's zero wasted text.

  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 read-only tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description provides good context about what's captured and returned, plus sibling differentiation. However, without annotations or output schema, it could benefit from more detail about the return format (what 'formatted summary + stats' means) and any behavioral constraints.

  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 description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. According to guidelines, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even with no param info in the description.

  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 specific action ('Read browser console logs with filters') and resource ('browser console logs'), and explicitly distinguishes it from sibling 'browser.network.inspect' for full HTTP payloads. It specifies what types of logs are captured (JS errors/warnings/logs and browser-generated network errors).

  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?

  The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives: 'For full HTTP payloads and headers, use 'browser.network.inspect''. This clearly defines the boundary between this console-focused tool and the network-focused sibling tool.

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

• browser.network.inspectA
  4.4/5.0
  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 effectively describes the tool's behavior: it inspects 'recent' network requests (implying a time-bound scope), captures network errors missed by console tools, and is DevTools-like (suggesting detailed network data). However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or whether it's read-only/destructive, leaving some behavioral aspects unclear for a tool with 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?

  The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded, with two sentences that efficiently convey purpose and usage. Every sentence earns its place: the first states the action and primary use case, and the second adds critical behavioral context about capturing network errors. There is no wasted text 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 tool's complexity (6 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is mostly complete. It clearly defines the tool's purpose and usage context, but lacks details on output format, error handling, or authentication needs. However, it compensates somewhat by specifying the debugging focus and network error capture, making it adequate though not fully comprehensive for a tool with no structured behavioral data.

  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?

  Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description does not add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain urlFilter patterns or details field implications). With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract from the schema's documentation.

  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 specific action ('Inspect recent browser network requests') and resource ('browser network requests'), distinguishing it from siblings like browser.console.read or browser.screenshot by focusing on network debugging rather than console output or visual capture. It specifies the DevTools-like nature and debugging context for HTTP failures, payloads, and request sequences.

  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?

  The description explicitly states when to use this tool ('Use for debugging HTTP failures (4xx/5xx), payloads, and request sequences') and provides a key exclusion ('Note: This captures network errors that console tools miss'), which distinguishes it from browser.console.read. It also implies alternatives by mentioning what console tools might miss, guiding the agent away from using console-based tools for network error inspection.

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

• ui.inspectElementA
  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 does an excellent job describing what information is returned (computed CSS styles, parent/child context, layout debugging, accessibility audit, etc.) and how the tool behaves (provides actionable suggestions, detects common CSS issues). However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like browser compatibility or performance characteristics.

  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 well-structured with clear sections (Prerequisite, Returns, Autonomous AI Usage, Best used in workflow) and uses bullet points effectively. While comprehensive, it could be slightly more concise as some bullet points contain redundant phrasing. Every sentence adds value, but there's minor room for tightening.

  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 (comprehensive debugging tool) with no annotations and no output schema, the description does an excellent job explaining what the tool returns and how to use it. However, without an output schema, the description could benefit from more specific details about the return format structure. The description compensates well but doesn't fully replace a proper output schema.

  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 zero parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline would be 4. The description appropriately explains that no parameters are needed because the tool works with the currently selected element in DevTools, which adds valuable context beyond the empty 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 purpose as 'Gets comprehensive debugging information for the element selected in browser DevTools' with specific details about what information is retrieved. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like browser.screenshot and ui.interact by focusing specifically on element inspection rather than general interaction or screenshot capture.

  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?

  The description provides explicit usage guidance including prerequisites ('DevTools open, element selected in Elements panel'), when to use it ('Best used in workflow: Screenshot → Select Element → Enhanced Inspect → Apply Fixes'), and autonomous usage context ('This tool provides enough context to understand and fix UI issues without additional tool calls'). It clearly positions this as a specialized debugging tool distinct from general browser tools.

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