Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• mevzuat_araA
  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 describes a read-only search operation and mentions result limiting via 'adet'. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, authentication needs, or return format details beyond the ID and name.

  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 and front-loaded with purpose. It uses a clear structure with explanations and colons. No unnecessary content, but the formatting is slightly informal.

  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 and low schema coverage, the description adequately explains the tool's role, workflow integration with siblings, and parameter meanings. It could provide more detail on return format but is sufficient for the task.

  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?

  Input schema has 3 parameters with 0% coverage, but description explains 'nerede' options and 'adet' meaning (max result count 1-50). The 'ifade' parameter is implied as the search query but not explicitly described.

  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 searches for laws (KANUN) on mevzuat.gov.tr and returns matching laws and their IDs. It differentiates from sibling tools (madde_getir, kanun_metni_getir) by explaining that the returned mevzuat_id can be used with them.

  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 clear guidance: 'Kanunun numarasını bilmiyorsan önce bunu çağır' (if you don't know the law number, call this first) and explains how to use results. It also describes parameter choices for 'nerede' and 'adet'. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool (e.g., when law number is known).

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

• bilinen_kanunlarA
  4.6/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description fully bears the transparency burden. It explains the behavior (lists registered laws with specific fields) and adds a caveat about unregistered laws being callable, which is useful context beyond the tool name.

  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, no wasted words. The main action is front-loaded, and the secondary sentence adds essential context about coverage. Every sentence earns its place.

  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 no parameters, an output schema exists, and the description explains the purpose, fields, and scope (quick index). It is complete for this simple list tool.

  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?

  There are no parameters, and the schema coverage is 100%. The description adds value by clarifying the output fields (kısaltma, no, ad, mevzuat_id), exceeding the baseline score of 4 for zero-parameter tools.

  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 lists registered laws with specific fields (kısaltma, no, ad, mevzuat_id), distinguishing it from sibling tools like madde_getir or mevzuat_ara by emphasizing it is a quick index of common laws.

  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?

  It explains when to use the tool (to list registered laws) and notes that unregistered laws can still be called by number/id, implying this is not exhaustive. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide direct comparisons with siblings.

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

• madde_getirA
  4.6/5.0
  Behavior4/5

  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 reveals that the tool returns `metin` (consolidated text), `kaynak` (verification URL), and a possible warning. It also describes failure mode (article not found). However, it does not mention authentication, rate limits, or side effects. Lacking annotations, the description is fairly transparent but could be more explicit about being a read-only operation.

  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 only two paragraphs. The first sentence states the core purpose. The second paragraph provides usage context. Every sentence adds value, and there is no verbosity or repetition.

  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 and simple parameters, the description covers the return fields (`metin`, `kaynak`, `uyari`) and failure handling. It explains what to do with the output. However, it does not explicitly state the data structure of the return object, which would help an agent parse the response correctly.

  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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the `kanun` parameter can be an abbreviation ('TBK'), number ('6098'), or full ID ('1.5.6098'). For `madde_no`, it is implied as the article number. While it adds value beyond the schema, it does not specify exact format constraints or validation rules for `kanun`.

  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 official current text of a specific article of a law. The verb 'getirir' and resource 'bir kanunun belirli maddesinin RESMÎ güncel metni' are specific. The tool is distinguished from siblings like 'kanun_metni_getir' (law text retrieval) and 'mevzuat_ara' (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?

  The description explicitly says 'Atıf yapmadan önce bunu çağır' (call this before citing), explains returned fields (`metin`, `kaynak`, `uyari`), instructs what to do if `metin` is None, warns not to fabricate, and explains the `kanun` parameter format. This provides clear when-to-use and what-to-expect guidance.

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

• kanun_metni_getirA
  4.8/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the source (mevzuat.gov.tr), output structure, and input formats. However, it omits potential behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication, or error handling. Given the simplicity of the tool, this is mostly adequate.

  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 with three short sentences. The first sentence states the primary purpose and source. The second provides usage guidance. The third defines input and output. No unnecessary words.

  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 tool has one parameter, no output schema, and simple functionality, the description fully covers input format, output structure, and usage alternatives. It is complete for an agent to correctly select and invoke the tool.

  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?

  The schema has only one parameter 'kanun' with 0% coverage. The description meaningfully compensates by explaining it accepts abbreviations ('TMK'), numbers ('4721'), or full identifiers ('1.5.4721'), adding essential guidance 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 tool retrieves the official current full text of a law from mevzuat.gov.tr. It specifies the verb 'getirir' and resource 'kanun', and distinguishes from siblings by advising to use 'madde_getir' for single articles.

  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?

  The description explicitly tells when to use this tool: for full text of large laws, and when to avoid it: if only a single article is needed, use 'madde_getir' instead. This provides clear guidance.

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