Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• search_channelsC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations provided, so the description must carry full burden. It mentions default sort order but omits details such as result limits, pagination, rate limits, or error behavior. Minimal 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?

  Two concise sentences that front-load the core purpose and cover the main parameter. No redundant information; every sentence adds value.

  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?

  Missing critical context: no output schema, so description should explain return format or behavior. Also lacks details on result count, pagination, or the nature of 'channels'. Incomplete for a search tool.

  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 the description adds only a note about default sort order, which is already in the schema. No additional meaning beyond what the input schema provides, earning a baseline score.

  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 action (searches) and resource (channels), with explicit query and sort order. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling 'search_videos' tool, missing an opportunity to clarify scope.

  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 'search_videos'. The description implies it's for channels but does not state exclusions or prerequisites.

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

• get_transcriptB
  3.1/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication needs, or potential transcript unavailability. It only mentions caching for plainText, which is a minor trait.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness2/5

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

  The description includes a lengthy block of formatting guidance that is unnecessary for tool invocation, making it verbose and not front-loaded. The core purpose is stated in the first sentence, but the extra content detracts.

  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 there is no output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns (e.g., transcript chunks, timestamps). It does not, leaving the agent uncertain about the response structure.

  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%, so the schema already describes all parameters in detail. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, meeting the baseline of 3.

  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 'Retrieves the full transcript of a specified YouTube video,' which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools (get_channel_videos, etc.) by focusing on transcript extraction.

  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 says it is 'useful for understanding video content without watching it, or for extracting textual information,' implying when to use, but no explicit when-not or alternative tools are mentioned.

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

• get_channel_videosA
  3.5/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose pagination, default ordering, rate limits, or what happens with large channels. The maxResults parameter hints at limits but no explicit behavior is described.

  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 consists of two efficient sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence immediately states the purpose, and the second adds context. It is well-structured for quick comprehension.

  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 simple nature of the tool (2 parameters, no output schema), the description is somewhat complete. However, it could mention the return format (e.g., video details) and any authentication requirements to be fully 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%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description does not add any information beyond what is in the schema, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

  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 retrieves videos from a specified YouTube channel, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_channels and search_videos by focusing on a single channel's uploads.

  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 says it's useful for getting all videos uploaded by a specific channel, which provides some context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, such as search_videos for cross-channel searching.

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

• search_videosA
  3.6/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It states the sorting default and return fields, but does not disclose potential limitations (e.g., pagination, rate limits, authentication). The description is adequate but not exhaustive.

  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?

  Three concise sentences that front-load the purpose, then describe return value and default sorting. No unnecessary words or repetition. Highly efficient.

  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?

  No output schema is provided, so the description must explain return values, which it does (list with title, video ID, channel info). It also notes the default sorting. However, it lacks mention of pagination or result limits, which would improve completeness for a search tool.

  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% (both parameters have descriptions in the input schema). The description adds no new semantic information beyond the schema, as it only restates the query and default sortBy value. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

  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 verb 'Searches YouTube for videos matching the specified query' and specifies the resource (YouTube videos) and return fields (title, video ID, channel information). It distinguishes from sibling tools like search_channels and get_channel_videos by focusing on video search.

  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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., search_channels, get_channel_videos). It mentions default sorting by rating but lacks explicit context for usage scenarios or 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.

• get_video_frameA
  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 discloses key behavioral traits: dependency on yt-dlp and fallback resolution limit (320x180). This gives the agent essential information about possible output quality.

  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 short sentences, each packed with critical information. No wasted words; the dependency and fallback are efficiently communicated.

  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 is complete enough for a simple screenshot tool: purpose, dependency, fallback. It does not mention return format or error cases, but that is acceptable given the lack of output schema and the tool's straightforward nature.

  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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning to the 'quality' parameter by explaining its default and conditional use (only when yt-dlp is available), improving semantics 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 action ('Captures a screenshot from a YouTube video at a specified timestamp') and distinguishes it from siblings like search or transcript tools. The mention of full-quality vs. fallback adds specificity.

  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 explains that yt-dlp is required for full-quality and that fallback occurs without it, providing clear usage context. It does not explicitly state when not to use, but the sibling tools are sufficiently different so confusion is unlikely.

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