Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• searxng_search_suggestionsA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description adds limited behavioral context. It confirms the tool returns suggestions but doesn't elaborate on traits like rate limits or instance-specific behavior.

  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 sentences with no wasted words. The primary action is front-loaded, and the usage guidance is succinct.

  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 tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the return value and use case. It does not describe the return format, but given the simplicity, this is acceptable.

  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 fully documents both parameters. The description adds no additional semantics beyond what the schema provides.

  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 action ('Returns autocomplete suggestions') and resource ('SearXNG instance'). It distinguishes from siblings like searxng_web_search by focusing on refinement before searching.

  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?

  Explicitly advises using the tool to 'refine vague or partial queries before searching', providing clear context. Does not include explicit when-not or alternatives, but the sibling tools naturally differentiate.

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

• searxng_instance_infoA
  4.1/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations provide readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds caching behavior (refresh parameter) and filtering options, which supplements 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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the main purpose and details. Every word is informative, 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?

  Given the lack of output schema, the description adequately lists the data returned (categories, engines, defaults, etc.). Combined with annotations, the context is sufficient for usage.

  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% with clear parameter descriptions. The tool description reiterates the refresh bypass cache behavior but does not add significant new 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 uses specific verbs ('Discovers capabilities') and identifies the exact resource (SearXNG instances via /config). It lists the data returned and clearly distinguishes from sibling search/read tools.

  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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives. While the purpose is clear, it lacks when-not guidance or references to sibling tools.

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

• searxng_web_searchA
  4.1/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds that availability depends on SEARXNG_URL configuration, which is useful context. It also clarifies the critical parameter naming. Beyond annotations, it provides value 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.

  Conciseness4/5

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

  The description is concise, beginning with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value: purpose, critical note, usage tips, and follow-up suggestion. It is well-structured and front-loaded. Could potentially be slightly tighter, but effective.

  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, the description explains the return value (list with title, URL, content snippet). It covers key aspects: external dependency, parameter usage, and response_format. However, it could mention more about pagination details and the full effect of parameters like safesearch and min_score. Still, it meets completeness for most use cases.

  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 baseline is 3. The description adds context about the 'query' parameter name criticality and suggests combining time_range and language, but this does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema. Most parameter details are in 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 it searches the web using SearXNG, returning a list of results with title, URL, and content snippet. It differentiates from sibling tools by mentioning follow-up with web_url_read and implies distinction from searxng_instance_info and searxng_search_suggestions via context.

  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 explicit usage guidance: the required parameter name is exactly 'query', use pageno for pagination, combine time_range and language to narrow scope, and follow up with web_url_read to read full text. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives beyond this, but the guidance is clear and actionable.

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

• web_url_readA
  4.6/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. Description adds behavioral details: three modes, error handling (returns error string if unreachable), and mutual exclusion. It's transparent about what the tool does but doesn't cover all edge cases (e.g., combining multiple filtering params other than readHeadings).

  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 but well-structured paragraph that enumerates modes clearly. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy. Front-loaded with main purpose.

  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?

  Covers main functionality, modes, error handling, and relation to sibling tool. No output schema, but return type (text/markdown) is implied. Minor gap: doesn't specify behavior when multiple filtering params are combined beyond readHeadings.

  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 parameters are documented. The description adds significant meaning by grouping parameters into modes and explaining relationships (e.g., omit filtering for full content, set section for extraction, readHeadings for headings). It clarifies mutex conditions beyond 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 fetches a URL and converts content to markdown, with three distinct modes. It distinguishes from sibling tools (search tools) by specifying it's for reading individual URLs after a search.

  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?

  Explicitly says to use after searxng_web_search to read full content of result URLs. Describes three modes and their parameter usage, including mutual exclusivity of readHeadings. Provides guidance on pagination with startChar/maxLength.

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