Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• recall_deleteA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  Adds context beyond annotations: confirms permanence, irreversible action, and safe no-op for non-existent memories. Annotations already indicate destructive and idempotent, but description reinforces and explains edge cases.

  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?

  Four succinct sentences, front-loaded with purpose, args and return clearly separated. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

  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?

  Description explains return value (boolean with 'deleted' key), covers edge case of non-existent memory, and notes irreversibility. No output schema, but description compensates fully.

  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 baseline 3. Description provides 'kebab-case slug' which aligns with schema pattern, but adds no significant new meaning beyond the schema property 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?

  Clearly states 'Permanently delete a memory by name', uses specific verb+resource, and distinguishes from sibling tools (get, list, search, write).

  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?

  Indicates that deletion is permanent and cannot be undone, and explains the no-op behavior for non-existent memories. Does not explicitly exclude alternative tools, but context is clear.

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

• recall_getA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, ensuring the agent knows it's a safe, non-destructive operation. The description adds that it returns the memory or a not-found message, complementing the annotations without contradiction.

  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 concise and front-loaded. Two clear sentences followed by an argument list with 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.

  Completeness5/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a simple read tool with no output schema, the description fully explains what it returns (memory or not-found), covers both parameters, and annotations provide behavioral safety. No gaps.

  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 useful context: 'kebab-case slug' for name and explains response_format options ('markdown' default or 'json'), enhancing understanding 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?

  Description clearly states 'Fetch a single memory by name, including its full body.' It specifies the verb (fetch) and resource (memory by name), and the context of arguments and return distinguishes it from sibling tools like recall_list and recall_search.

  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 usage for fetching a specific memory by name. While it does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives, the sibling tools (delete, links, list, search, write) cover other operations, making the purpose sufficiently clear.

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

• recall_listA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Adds context beyond annotations: returns summaries (no bodies) plus pagination metadata, and lists parameters' effect. Annotations declare readOnly=true, idempotent=true, destructive=false, consistent.

  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?

  One-line purpose plus bulleted parameters, no fluff, front-loaded with key info.

  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?

  No output schema but describes returns; covers all 4 parameters with defaults and options; adequate for a non-destructive listing tool.

  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 100% so baseline 3; description adds usage notes (defaults for limit/offset, response_format options) beyond schema descriptions.

  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 'List stored memories (index view, no bodies)' with verb and resource, and distinguishes from siblings like recall_get (full body) and recall_search.

  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?

  Implies usage for listing/filtering memories; could explicitly contrast with recall_get or recall_search but provides clear parameter guidance.

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

• recall_searchA
  4.6/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  Description reveals ranking algorithm (name > description > body), that non-matches are dropped, and returns best results first. Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and description adds useful context without contradiction.

  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 very concise with a clear structure: one-sentence purpose, paragraph on behavior, bulleted arg list, and return note. Every sentence adds value.

  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 no output schema, description mentions 'returns ranked matches with their relevance scores' and 'Empty if nothing matches.' It could specify the structure of the ranking, but it is sufficiently complete for a retrieval tool.

  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. Description adds value by explaining the ranking rule for the query parameter and clarifying defaults like limit=20. The type parameter is augmented with the phrase 'optional filter to a single memory type', which matches 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?

  Description clearly states it is a retrieval tool for memories by free-text query, ranked by relevance. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like recall_delete and recall_write by calling itself the 'primary retrieval tool'.

  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?

  Description explains that it is the primary retrieval tool and describes the ranking behavior. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide direct alternatives among siblings.

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

• recall_writeA
  4.7/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  Discloses safety behavior: refuses overwrite by default, returns conflict. Requires explicit overwrite=true to replace. No contradiction with annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false is appropriate).

  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?

  Concise and well-structured: one-line purpose, then detailed explanation, then bulleted args list. Every sentence adds necessary information without 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?

  Covers parameters, return values (created/updated/conflict), and edge cases (overwrite behavior). Sufficient for an agent to use correctly without additional context.

  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%, but description adds value: specifies kebab-case slug, recall ranking importance of description, wikilink detection, and default behavior for overwrite.

  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 'Create a new memory, or replace an existing one' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools which are read/delete/list/search operations.

  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 when to use it (create vs replace) and the safety default (no overwrite). While it doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings, the context implies usage for writing only.

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

• recall_linksA
  4.8/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds that the tool returns names of connected memories per direction, which is useful behavioral detail beyond 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 extremely concise: one sentence for purpose, then bullet-style args, then return info. No wasted words, front-loaded with key purpose.

  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?

  Given the low complexity, complete parameter coverage, and annotations covering safety, the description adequately explains inputs and return values. No output schema needed.

  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?

  Schema coverage is 100%, but description adds clarity by explaining the direction enum values and default, and rephrases the name parameter for context. Adds significant meaning 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 verb 'Find' and resource 'memories connected to a given memory through [[wikilink]] references'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like recall_get (retrieve single memory) and recall_search (search by content).

  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 use when exploring link connections but does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool or compare to alternatives like recall_search. Provides clear context but no exclusions.

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