Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• search_bubblesB
  3.2/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  The readOnlyHint annotation already communicates a safe read operation. The description adds the 'current and historical' scope but does not disclose other behavioral aspects such as pagination or filtering behavior. This is acceptable given the annotation, but not rich.

  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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary detail.

  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?

  The tool has 4 parameters and no output schema, yet the description provides minimal context. It lacks details about return format, filtering by platform/timeframe, or what constitutes a 'Bubble'. The description is too skeletal for a tool with these options.

  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?

  With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate, but it only partially hints at the 'query' parameter by listing example search subjects. It does not explain the limit, platforms, or timeframe parameters, leaving significant ambiguity.

  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 tool searches for Bubbles about specified topics, with a specific verb and resource. It indicates scope (current and historical) but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_bubbles or get_bubble_details.

  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 for keyword-based searching but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. The use case is inferred from the listed search subjects.

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

• get_bubblesB
  3.3/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a safe read operation, and the description aligns with this. However, it does not disclose return shape, pagination, sorting details, or any restrictions, leaving behavioral transparency only partially addressed.

  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 sentence of nine words, front-loaded with the action 'Return' and the resource. Every word contributes, with no filler or redundancy.

  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?

  With four parameters, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions in the schema, the description is too brief to fully support invocation. It communicates the high-level purpose but omits parameter semantics, return format, and usage context, making it only partially complete.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters1/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no explanation for limit, category, min_score, or timeframe. The parameter names are self-explanatory to some degree, but the description fails to add any meaning beyond the raw schema fields.

  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 'Return' and identifies the resource as 'highest-priority internet conversations currently gaining momentum,' clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools like get_bubble_details or search_bubbles. It conveys a read operation focused on trending content.

  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 for obtaining top trending conversations but does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives, nor does it mention search_bubbles or other siblings. Context is clear, but no exclusions or alternative guidance are provided.

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

• generate_contentA
  3.5/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations only indicate non-read-only and non-destructive, and the description adds the key behavioral trait that it 'never publishes automatically,' providing a safety guarantee beyond annotations. It doesn't address side effects or response format, but with annotations covering the basic profile, this is sufficient context. A 4 reflects the added safety 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 short sentences, the first states the action, the second adds a crucial constraint. No filler or redundancy. A 5 is appropriate.

  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?

  With 5 parameters, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the description should have guided the agent on what inputs are needed and what the output looks like. It only mentions the Bubble source and the non-publishing behavior, missing the required format parameter and usage context. Therefore, the description is incomplete.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters1/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 0% and the description fails to explain any of the 5 parameters beyond implying 'from a Bubble' maps to bubble_id. It doesn't clarify the meaning of 'format,' 'goal,' 'tone,' or 'instructions,' leaving the agent to rely solely on parameter names and enums. Since the description must compensate for the low coverage and does not, the score is 1.

  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 ('Generate') and resource ('content draft from a Bubble'), with a qualifier 'evidence-based'. It clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings (which are all retrieval/search tools) by being the only generation tool, and the statement 'never publishes' confirms its draft-only scope.

  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 for producing a draft but offers no explicit 'use when' conditions or alternatives. It doesn't reference sibling tools or explain that a Bubble must first be fetched via get_bubbles/get_bubble_details. It only gives a safety guideline about not publishing, which is helpful but insufficient.

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

• compare_bubblesA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Annotations declare readOnlyHint: true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the comparative/analytical behavior but does not disclose output format or determinism. With annotations, this is acceptable but adds limited extra context beyond the purpose.

  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 verb 'compare' and avoids any fluff. Every word contributes to 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?

  There is no output schema, and the description does not state what the tool returns (e.g., a bubble ID or explanation). The goal parameter is optional per schema but implied as required in the description, and usage context could be more explicit regarding prerequisites and alternatives.

  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?

  Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the goal enum values (content, product_idea, launch, distribution) or what 'strongest' means. bubble_ids is self-explanatory but still not explicitly described, leaving the agent with limited guidance on parameter semantics.

  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 verb ('compare'), resource ('Bubbles'), scope ('two to five'), and outcome ('recommend the strongest one for a specific goal'). This differentiates it from sibling tools like get_bubbles, search_bubbles, and get_bubble_details.

  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 implies when to use this tool (when comparing multiple bubbles for a goal) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools. The context is clear enough with no exclusions mentioned.

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

• get_bubble_detailsA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this as a safe read operation. The description adds value by specifying the return contents (timeline, pain points, opportunities, verified sources), which is useful behavioral context especially with no output schema. No contradiction exists with the annotation.

  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, front-loaded sentence that states the core purpose first and then lists the return items. Every word earns its place, with no filler 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?

  For a single-parameter, read-only tool, the description covers the primary behavior and explicitly lists what is returned, which is important because there is no output schema. It could be more complete by pointing to sibling tools or clarifying the parameter, but overall it is sufficient for basic use.

  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?

  Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention the bubble_id parameter or explain how to specify which Bubble to explain. The parameter name is self-explanatory, but since the schema provides no description, the tool description should compensate; it does not, leaving the mapping from 'a Bubble' to bubble_id implicit.

  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 'Explain' and names the resource 'Bubble' along with concrete outputs (timeline, pain points, opportunities, verified sources). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_bubbles or search_bubbles that likely list or find bubbles rather than explain a single one.

  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 for deep-diving into a specific bubble's growth story, which gives a clear use case. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings like get_bubbles, search_bubbles, or compare_bubbles, nor does it mention any exclusions or alternatives.

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