Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• zerochan_get_entryA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already indicate this is a read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world operation. The description adds valuable context by detailing what metadata is returned (tags, image URLs, categories) and the output format options (markdown vs. JSON), which goes beyond the annotations. No contradictions with annotations are present.

  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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, returns, args, schema), but includes redundant schema details that are already in the output schema. It could be more concise by omitting the schema duplication, though the information is front-loaded and each sentence adds value.

  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's complexity, rich annotations, and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It covers purpose, parameters, return values, and behavioral details, making it sufficient for an agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly without needing additional explanation.

  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 input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description compensates by explaining the parameters in the 'Args' section, including 'entry_id' (numeric ID), 'response_format' (markdown/json), and notes on defaults. However, it incorrectly lists 'username' as required when the schema does not include it, causing a minor inconsistency.

  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 specific action ('Retrieve detailed information') and resource ('about a single Zerochan entry by its numeric ID'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'zerochan_browse' and 'zerochan_search' which likely handle multiple entries or search queries rather than single-entry 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 implies usage context by specifying it's for retrieving detailed information about a single entry, which naturally contrasts with browsing or searching multiple entries. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus its siblings or mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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

• zerochan_searchA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, indicating safe, non-destructive, open-ended, and idempotent behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations, such as tag naming conventions ('Title Case with spaces'), strict mode rules, and output format details, enhancing transparency without contradictions.

  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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage details and parameter explanations. It is appropriately sized but includes some redundancy (e.g., repeating parameter details that could be inferred from schema), slightly reducing efficiency.

  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's complexity, rich annotations, and detailed input schema, the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage, parameters, and output behavior, and with an output schema present, it need not explain return values in depth. The description provides all necessary context for effective tool invocation.

  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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description fully compensates by detailing all parameters in the 'Args' section, including their purposes, defaults, constraints, and examples. It adds meaning beyond the schema's structure, such as explaining tag formatting, strict mode behavior, and output format implications.

  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: 'Search Zerochan entries by one or more tags.' It specifies the verb ('Search'), resource ('Zerochan entries'), and scope ('by one or more tags'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'zerochan_browse' and 'zerochan_get_entry' by focusing on tag-based search rather than browsing or fetching specific entries.

  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 context for usage, such as supporting 'single-tag, multi-tag, and strict-mode queries,' and explains strict mode limitations. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus its siblings (e.g., 'zerochan_browse' or 'zerochan_get_entry'), missing explicit alternatives or exclusions.

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

• zerochan_browseA
  4.8/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations. While annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, idempotent operations, the description specifies that it 'Supports sorting by recency or popularity, filtering by dimensions or color, and pagination' and details the return format options. It doesn't contradict annotations (readOnlyHint=true aligns with 'browse'), but provides important implementation details about filtering capabilities and output formats.

  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 perfectly structured and concise. It begins with a clear purpose statement, provides usage context, then details parameters in a well-organized format, and concludes with return value information. Every sentence earns its place, and the information is front-loaded with the most important details first.

  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's complexity (multiple filtering/sorting options) and the presence of annotations and output schema, the description is complete. It explains what the tool does, when to use it, all parameters with semantics, and the return format differences. The output schema existence means the description doesn't need to detail return structure, and it appropriately focuses on behavioral aspects.

  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?

  Despite 0% schema description coverage (the schema has descriptions but coverage calculation shows 0%), the description provides comprehensive parameter documentation in the Args section. It explains all 8 parameters with their purposes, defaults, constraints, and enums. This fully compensates for any schema coverage gaps and adds substantial value beyond what the schema structure alone 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 purpose: 'Browse all Zerochan entries with optional filtering and pagination.' It specifies the verb ('browse'), resource ('Zerochan entries'), and scope ('all'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like zerochan_search (which presumably filters by tags) and zerochan_get_entry (which likely retrieves a specific entry).

  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 states when to use this tool: 'Queries the Zerochan global feed without any tag filter.' This clearly differentiates it from zerochan_search (which would use tag filters) and provides a specific use case (browsing the global feed). The guidance is direct and helpful for tool selection.

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