Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• check_ipB
  3.2/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It lists return values but does not state that this is a read-only operation, any rate limits, error behavior, or authentication requirements.

  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 primary purpose, and lists key return fields without unnecessary detail. Every sentence earns its place.

  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 simple read-only IP check with no output schema, the description adequately explains the purpose and return values. However, it could be more complete by mentioning what happens when the IP is not found or how verbose/max_age affect results, but the schema provides defaults.

  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 three parameters with types and defaults. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what is already in the schema.

  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 ('Check') and resource ('IP address') and specifies what it returns (abuse confidence score, ISP, country, usage type, report count). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like check_block or get_reports.

  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?

  Provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The only implied context is checking an IP for abuse, but there are no exclusions or alternative recommendations, even though similar sibling tools exist.

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

• get_reportsA
  3.7/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It indicates a read operation and describes the returned data, but does not mention pagination behavior, default filters, or any rate parameters. This is a moderate level of 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?

  The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the primary action and resource, and includes a clarifying detail about the report contents. It is appropriately sized with no wasted words.

  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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, this description explains the core purpose and return content, but lacks details about response structure, pagination defaults, and how it fits with sibling tools. It is adequate but not fully complete for an agent to invoke it confidently without more context.

  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 descriptions cover all parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, though it does hint at the 'when' aspect via reports being filed.

  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 retrieves individual abuse reports for an IP address, naming the specific content (who, why, when). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like check_ip or get_blacklist, which focus on other aspects.

  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 the tool is used when abuse reports are needed, but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or mention any exclusions. No explicit comparisons to sibling tools are made, leaving usage guidance only implicit.

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

• get_blacklistA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavior. It usefully explains that free tier ignores confidence_minimum and always returns confidence 100 results. However, it omits details on ordering, pagination, or authentication, which are relevant for a read operation.

  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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and a key caveat. Every word earns its place; no redundancy or filler.

  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 simplicity (two optional params, no output schema), the description covers the main purpose and the critical tier constraint. Minor gaps like return ordering are not significant enough to warrant a lower score.

  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 descriptions fully cover both parameters, but the description adds critical semantics not in the schema: paid vs. free tier behavior regarding confidence_minimum. This goes beyond the structured parameter docs, enhancing understanding.

  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 ('Get') and resource ('most reported IP addresses'), clearly distinguishing this from siblings like check_ip and check_block which target individual IPs. The 'blacklist' aspect is implicit but unambiguous.

  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 states the tool fetches top reported IPs and highlights a tier-based limitation, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like get_reports or check_ip. Usage context is clear but no direct 'when to use' guidance is given.

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

• check_blockA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the return payload (network range info plus per-IP breakdown), implying a read-only operation, but does not explicitly state side effects, rate limits, or error behavior. The term 'check' suggests safety, but more detail would be helpful.

  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 long and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the action and output, the second provides a cross-reference to a sibling tool. No wasted words.

  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 gives a sufficient high-level summary of return values, which is important because there is no output schema. It does not cover edge cases like maximum range or error handling, but those are partly addressed in the schema. For a relatively simple check tool, the description is reasonably complete.

  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 coverage is 100%, and both parameters are already well-described in the schema (e.g., network format and max_age_in_days). The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

  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 a CIDR network block and returns network range info plus per-IP breakdown of reported addresses. It explicitly differentiates from the sibling check_ip tool by noting to use check_ip for a single IP address, making the purpose unambiguous.

  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 by stating 'Use check_ip instead for a single IP address,' which clarifies the primary distinction between the two tools. It implies the tool is for checking CIDR blocks, giving clear context for when to use it.

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