Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• list_saved_recipesA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations provided so description carries full burden. Discloses authentication requirement but omits behavioral aspects like read-only nature, rate limits, or pagination limits.

  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?

  Three concise sentences; purpose line is clear, followed by prerequisites and parameter explanations. Efficient without unnecessary detail.

  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 prerequisites and parameter semantics. Output schema exists so return value not needed. Sufficient for a list tool with two parameters, though could note the object shape briefly.

  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 0%, so description is the sole source. Explains page as 1-indexed and per_page default 48, adding meaningful detail beyond the schema's defaults and types.

  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?

  Clearly states it lists saved recipes from the user's recipe box. The verb 'list' and resource 'saved recipes' are specific, but it doesn't explicitly distinguish from search_recipes, though the context makes it clear.

  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 mentions prerequisites (user id and session cookie) and references the login tool. Does not contrast with alternatives like search_recipes, but provides actionable guidance.

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

• logoutA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It mentions deletion of credentials, implying a destructive action, but does not disclose prerequisites (e.g., must be logged in) or side effects.

  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 a single concise sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately front-loaded but could benefit from a slightly more structured format.

  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 tool with zero parameters and a simple action, the description is complete enough. It covers the core functionality, though it could mention return values or side effects.

  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?

  With zero parameters, the baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter info, and the schema coverage is 100%.

  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 action (delete stored credentials) and the resource (NYT Cooking credentials). It distinguishes from siblings like login and auth_status by indicating it removes stored data.

  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?

  There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. However, given the simplicity and zero parameters, the context is implied, but it lacks when-not or prerequisites.

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

• search_recipesA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations exist, so the description bears full responsibility. It explains the return structure (id, name, url, author) and suggests using the id with get_recipe. However, it does not disclose authentication needs, rate limits, or whether the search is read-only, which leaves some behavioral gaps.

  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: purpose, parameter explanation, and return value usage. Every sentence is meaningful with no fluff.

  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 simplicity of the tool (single parameter, no annotations), the description covers the core workflow: search, obtain id, then use get_recipe for details. It could mention constraints like result limits or login requirement, but overall it is sufficient.

  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?

  With 0% schema coverage, the description adds crucial meaning: it clarifies that the query is natural-language and provides examples (e.g., 'chicken parmesan'). This goes beyond the schema's simply 'string' type.

  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 'Search' and the resource 'NYT Cooking for recipes', with additional detail about natural-language query. It distinguishes from siblings like get_recipe and list_saved_recipes by implying that this tool performs searches based on query text.

  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 query examples and explicitly ties to get_recipe for fetching full details, guiding the agent on when to use this tool vs. sibling. However, it does not mention when not to use this tool or alternatives like list_saved_recipes.

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

• auth_statusA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool reports whether credentials are configured without revealing values, indicating it is a safe read-only operation. No behavioral contradictions.

  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 convey the entire purpose and a key use case with no redundant information. Every sentence earns its place.

  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 parameters and the existence of an output schema (not shown), the description sufficiently covers what the tool does and its utility. It could hint at the output format, but the output schema covers that.

  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?

  The tool has no parameters, so schema coverage is 100% trivially. The description does not need to add parameter details; it is adequate for a no-parameter tool.

  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 reports whether NYT credentials are configured, which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like login, logout, and recipe-related tools by focusing on auth status.

  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 explicitly says it is useful for diagnosing auth_required errors, providing a clear use case. However, it does not mention when not to use it or provide explicit alternatives, though siblings implicitly cover related actions.

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

• get_recipeA
  4.6/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Lists all return fields (name, author, time, etc.) and notes id format. No annotations, but description adequately discloses output contents. Lacks mention of error handling or authentication.

  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, front-loaded main sentence, uses structured Args section. 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?

  Single parameter, output schema exists, siblings cover other actions. Description covers what, how, and what is returned completely.

  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 has only title and type for recipe_id; description adds example ('1019049') and source ('from a search result or URL'), fully compensating for 0% schema coverage.

  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 'Fetch full details for a single NYT Cooking recipe by its numeric id', with specific verb and resource. Distinguishes from sibling search_recipes which likely returns list.

  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 after obtaining a recipe_id from search or URL. Mentions the id origin. Could be more explicit about when not to use, but sufficient for context.

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

• loginA
  4.7/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: credentials are harvested once, persisted server-side like a session token, and verified with a live request before returning. This is exceptional transparency for a login tool.

  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 well-structured: a short opening sentence stating the purpose, followed by a paragraph explaining the rationale and a bullet-like list for each parameter. Every sentence adds value without unnecessary verbosity.

  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 that no annotations are present and schema coverage is 0%, the description does a good job covering the login process. It explains parameter usage, persistence, and verification. However, it does not mention the tool's return value (though an output schema exists) or error scenarios, leaving minor gaps.

  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 0%, so the description carries full burden. It explains the meaning and source of nyt_s_cookie (NYT-S cookie value) and user_id (regi_id from regi_cookie), and clarifies that user_id is optional and only needed for list_saved_recipes. This adds essential 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 tool's purpose: storing NYT Cooking credentials to keep the server logged in. It distinguishes from siblings like login-related tools by focusing on credential storage and verification, not authentication status or logout.

  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 how to obtain the parameters (NYT-S cookie and user_id) and notes that user_id is only needed for list_saved_recipes. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like auth_status or logout, though the context implies it is the first step after obtaining cookies.

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