Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• gopher_fetchA
  4.1/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. Description adds value by specifying 'Returns structured JSON responses optimized for LLM consumption' and explaining how to use next_url for navigation, which is beyond annotation coverage.

  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?

  Description is concise with two short paragraphs, structured logically with Args section. No unnecessary information.

  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 simple input schema (1 param), rich annotations, and output schema present, description covers essential aspects like navigation via next_url. Complete for the tool's complexity.

  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%, providing detailed parameter description and examples. Tool description reinforces supported types but does not significantly add meaning 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 tool name and title clearly indicate fetching a Gopher resource. Description states 'Fetch Gopher menus or text by URL' and lists supported item types, providing specific verb and resource.

  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?

  Description mentions supported item types but does not differentiate from sibling tools (gemini_fetch, gopher_batch_fetch) or provide explicit when-to-use/alternatives guidance. Adequate but lacks exclusion criteria.

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

• gopher_batch_fetchA
  4.6/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds the behavioral detail that it uses asyncio.gather() for concurrent fetching, enhancing transparency beyond annotations. No 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 with no filler. It front-loads the main purpose, then provides context and parameter/return details in a structured manner.

  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 an output schema, the description suffices by explaining the return order and length, and specifying a limit of 50 URLs. It covers all needed context for an agent to use the tool correctly.

  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 description coverage is 0%, but the description clearly explains the 'urls' parameter as 'List of Gopher URLs to fetch (at most 50 per call)' and describes return order and length, adding significant meaning.

  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 states 'Fetch multiple Gopher URLs in parallel' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling 'gopher_fetch' which fetches a single URL, and from 'gemini_batch_fetch' which is for Gemini protocol.

  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 says 'Useful for fetching multiple menu items or related resources at once', providing clear context. It implies not for single fetches but does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives.

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

• gemini_batch_fetchA
  4.8/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. Description adds valuable behavioral details: uses asyncio.gather for concurrency, returns results in same order, and caps at 50 URLs. No 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?

  Description is concise, using docstring structure with Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value, no redundancy. Key info is front-loaded.

  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 output schema existence, description covers input behavior (parallel, limit), return structure (list same order), and use case. No notable gaps; sibling tools provide additional context.

  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 0% description coverage. Description provides crucial parameter semantics: 'List of Gemini URLs to fetch (at most 50 per call)', adding meaning beyond type and array items 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 states 'Fetch multiple Gemini URLs in parallel for improved performance', clearly identifying action (fetch), resource (Gemini URLs), and key differentiator (multiple, parallel). This distinguishes from sibling gemini_fetch (single) and gopher siblings (different protocol).

  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 use case (multiple URLs, parallel speed improvement), includes constraint (at most 50), and implies sequential alternative. However, it lacks explicit 'when not to use' or direct reference to alternative sibling tools.

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

• gemini_fetchA
  4.8/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  The description provides rich behavioral context beyond annotations: protocol details, TLS handling, TOFU validation, gemtext parsing, input handling, and LLM-optimized output. Annotations declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, which align with a read-only fetch 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 efficiently structured with a clear topic sentence, protocol details, and parameter explanations. It uses a succinct bullet-like format (with 'Args:') and no redundant information.

  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?

  The tool has an output schema, so return value explanation is unnecessary. The description covers all essential aspects: protocol, authentication, input handling, and output format. It is fully sufficient for correct usage.

  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 description adds meaningful detail to both parameters: url usage is clarified with protocol context, and input is explained with percent-encoding and query replacement. Schema coverage is 100%, but the description enhances understanding beyond the schema comments.

  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 Gemini content by URL, specifying protocol support (TLS, TOFU, client certificates, gemtext parsing) and structured JSON output. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like gemini_batch_fetch and gopher_fetch by focusing on single resource fetches.

  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 typical usage, including handling of input prompts via the 'input' parameter. While it doesn't explicitly list when not to use it versus siblings, the protocol and single-resource nature make the usage context clear.

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