Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• search_casesA
  4.1/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses key behaviors: full-text search, filters by law article/court type/instance/dates, returns total_found and case_id/url, and requires token. Missing details on error handling, rate limits, or pagination.

  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 Russian sentences; first states purpose, second adds key details. No redundant or extraneous text.

  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?

  With full schema coverage and an output schema present, description adds value by mentioning returned fields (total_found, case_id/url) and integration with sibling tool. Covers all essential aspects 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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description summarizes parameter usage ('filters by article, court type, instance, dates') but does not add significant new semantics beyond what the schema already 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 performs full-text search of Russian court cases, similar to sudact.ru. It distinguishes from sibling 'get_citation' by noting it returns case_id/url for subsequent citation retrieval.

  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 mentions required authentication token (MCP_SUDACT_TOKEN) and tariff (Pro), and implies usage context by noting that returned case_id/url is for subsequent get_citation. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or state when-not to use.

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

• get_citationA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool fetches from server, supports optional anonymization, and requires authentication. It does not detail potential errors or behavior when both parameters are provided, but covers essential traits.

  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 three sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and contains no extraneous information. Every sentence serves a clear function.

  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 has an output schema and all parameters are described, the description is fairly complete. It covers the core functionality, required auth, and input options. Missing details like rate limits or error handling are not critical.

  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 description adds limited value beyond the schema. It mentions anonymization and the need for url or case_id, which are already documented 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 the tool retrieves the full text of a court decision using either a sudact.ru URL or a case_id. It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'search_cases' by specifying the action (get vs 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 specifies that a token (MCP_SUDACT_TOKEN, Pro tier) is required and that either url or case_id must be provided. It does not explicitly state when not to use or compare to alternatives, but the context is clear.

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