Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• clear_saved_cookiesB
  3.2/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations provided. The description only states the return value as 'clear result' without detailing what exactly is cleared (e.g., domain-specific, all cookies) or side effects. For a zero-annotation tool, 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.

  Conciseness3/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is very brief at two lines, but lacks structure (no sections, formatting) and is minimally informative. While not verbose, it sacrifices usefulness for brevity.

  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?

  For a 0-parameter tool with an output schema, the description should at least clarify the nature of 'clear result' (e.g., success/error content, count of cleared cookies). Without annotations, the description leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior and output.

  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?

  Input schema has no parameters, so 100% coverage. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4. Description does not add parameter info, but schema already covers completely.

  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 name and description clearly state the action 'clear' and resource 'saved cookies'. It distinguishes from siblings like save_cookies_from_browser (opposite) and browser_login (different operation).

  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?

  No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like clearing cookies via a login flow or using other cookie management tools. The description implies a simple clearing action but provides no context-appropriate or exclusionary information.

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

• check_playwright_installationA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, and the description gives minimal behavioral insight beyond 'returns status info'. It doesn't disclose what exactly is checked or potential errors.

  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?

  Extremely concise: two lines, no unnecessary words. Every part is essential.

  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 zero-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is sufficient. It explains the purpose and return type, though more detail on output structure could be given.

  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?

  There are no parameters (0), so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter info, but none is needed.

  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 checks Playwright browser driver installation status, using a specific verb and resource. It is distinct from sibling tools like browser_login or check_login_status.

  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?

  No explicit guidance on when to use or when not to use. Usage is implied (before browser operations), but no alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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

• save_cookies_from_browserA
  4.1/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It mentions saving cookies and the expected input format, but does not disclose side effects (e.g., overwriting existing cookies), validation behavior, or error handling. Basic transparency but lacks depth.

  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 sections for usage, args, and returns. It is front-loaded with the purpose. While not extremely concise, all sentences are informative and no waste is present.

  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, but the description omits details like behavior on repeated calls, success/failure responses, and integration with sibling tools. Given the presence of a return value, more detail on the output would improve completeness.

  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 specifying the expected format ("name1=value1; name2=value2" or curl -b argument). This adds significant meaning beyond the bare 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 saves browser cookies for first login, distinguishing it from sibling tools like browser_login, check_login_status, and clear_saved_cookies. It specifies the resource (cookies) and action (save).

  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 a step-by-step usage guide, explaining when to use the tool (after manual login via chrome_devtools_mcp and copying cookie string). It does not explicitly exclude other scenarios, but the context is clear.

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

• browser_loginA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Describes interactive nature (user must complete OAuth), timeout, and automatic cookie/session saving. Since no annotations exist, the description carries full burden and does so adequately.

  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?

  Well-structured with header, recommended flow, workflow steps, and args. Some redundancy (e.g., workflow repeats steps), but overall clear and not excessively long.

  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?

  Covers the core process but lacks details on return value format, error conditions, and behavior when login fails. An output schema exists but is not described here.

  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?

  Adds meaning to both parameters: use_persistent is recommended, timeout unit is seconds with default 300. Schema lacks property descriptions, so description compensates well.

  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 launching a browser for login, with explicit steps (open browser, wait for OAuth, save cookies) that distinguish it from sibling tools like check_login_status or clear_saved_cookies.

  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 a recommended workflow (call this tool first, then login, then collect_reports), but does not explicitly exclude alternatives or explain when not to use it.

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

• collect_reportsA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It warns about potential blocking due to login requirements and states auto_login is not recommended, but lacks details on error handling, data source, or post-collection actions.

  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 a clear header, warning, recommended workflow, and parameter list. It is slightly verbose but every sentence adds value, making it appropriately concise for the information conveyed.

  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 output schema existence (though vague), the description covers prerequisites, parameter details, and usage workflow. It could elaborate on the return value format or collection behavior, but overall it is sufficient for a data collection tool.

  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?

  With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully explains all parameters: date formats, output file default path options, and the auto_login flag's default and advisory against enabling.

  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 collects daily report data for a specified month range, using a specific verb ('采集') and resource ('日报数据'). It is distinct from sibling tools which handle login or system checks.

  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 recommends a workflow: first check login status, then login if needed, then collect. It warns against setting auto_login to True and provides clear alternatives via sibling tool names.

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

• check_login_statusA
  5/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  No annotations provided, but the description fully carries the burden. It describes the read-only nature of checking status and the possible outcomes, with no destructive hints or contradictions.

  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?

  Well-structured with bullet points and clear sections. Every sentence is meaningful and efficient, no fluff.

  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?

  Fully complete for a parameterless tool. Explains purpose, usage, outputs, and integrates with sibling tools in a recommended flow.

  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?

  No parameters exist, so the baseline is 4. The description adds value beyond schema by explaining return values and workflow. Score 5 for excellent context.

  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 checks current login status and recommends it as the first step. It differentiates from sibling tools like browser_login and collect_reports.

  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?

  Provides an explicit recommended workflow: call this first, then browser_login if not logged in, then collect_reports. Explains return values and next steps.

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