Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• jstage_search_articlesA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, but the description adds substantial behavioral detail: full-text matching with loose multi-word handling, the need to read matching_mode and result.breadth, the SCRIPT_LATIN_QUERY diagnostic meaning and remediation, and the cross-database variation with CiNii. This goes well beyond the annotations and sets clear expectations about query semantics and result interpretation.

  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 (two paragraphs) and front-loaded with the purpose. It arranges critical caveats in a logical flow, with the first sentence stating the action and the following sentences providing necessary warnings. No fluff, but it could be slightly more compact without losing nuance.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness3/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the tool has 14 parameters and an output schema, the description focuses heavily on the behavior of the `text` search and result interpretation. It does not cover how to combine filters, pagination semantics beyond what the schema implies, or potential rate limits. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return structure, but the description still lacks guidance on parameter interplay and tool-specific constraints.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters2/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 0% and parameter descriptions in the schema are minimal (e.g., 'Issue filter'). The description adds meaning primarily to the `text` parameter (full-text matching, loose terms) and implicitly references result.total, but other parameters like no, vol, pubyearfrom, etc., are not explained. The description does not compensate adequately for the lack of coverage across the many filters.

  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 opens with 'Search articles on J-STAGE', a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools jstage_get_article_by_doi (retrieval by DOI) and jstage_list_issues (listing issues). The mention of 'Returns the unified response envelope' further clarifies the action scope.

  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?

  The description gives guidance on interpreting results (noisy totals, SCRIPT_LATIN_QUERY re-issue in kanji/kana) and contrasts with CiNii behavior, but does not explicitly state when to use this search tool versus fetching a specific article or listing issues. The when-to-use context is implied by the tool's purpose but not explicitly articulated.

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

• jstage_get_article_by_doiA
  4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already establish read-only/idempotent/non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations by specifying the response envelope, the operation name ('resolve_doi'), and the success/failure contract (one item vs. zero items plus diagnostic). This clarifies what happens in edge cases, which is not covered by annotations.

  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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and then the response behavior. There is no redundancy or unnecessary detail. Every sentence contributes to understanding the tool's function and outcomes.

  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 (one parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: the operation, success/failure representation, and error handling. It does not mention pagination or other complexities because they are not applicable. The schema description handles the parameter format. Overall, it is complete 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.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The schema description for the 'doi' parameter already explains that it can be with or without the doi.org prefix, providing semantic meaning. Although the context signal says schema description coverage is 0%, the actual schema includes a description, so the baseline of 3 applies. The tool description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema 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 explicitly states the verb 'resolve' and the resource 'a J-STAGE DOI to its article record.' It is specific and clearly distinguishes from the siblings (search_articles and list_issues) by focusing on DOI-based lookup. The purpose is immediately understandable.

  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?

  The description does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus the alternatives. However, the purpose (DOI to article) strongly implies usage when a DOI is available. There are no explicit exclusions or comparisons to siblings, so guidance is only implied, not stated.

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

• jstage_list_issuesA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not repeat those. It adds useful behavioral context: the return is 'structural JSON (volumes with publisher/journal metadata), not the record envelope'. This clarifies the nature of the output beyond what annotations capture and reinforces the navigation-purpose distinction. It does not contradict any annotation.

  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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and immediately clarifies what it is not. Every word earns its place; there is no redundant or vague language.

  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?

  The tool is relatively simple (one params object) and the description covers the essential purpose and output shape. An output schema exists, so the detailed return structure is likely defined elsewhere. The description could elaborate on pagination (count/start) or use cases, but for a navigation aid the current level is adequate. The only minor gap is not mentioning the filtering options beyond identifiers, but they are in the schema.

  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 0% (description does not discuss the parameters object). The description mentions 'by material/issn/cdjournal', covering three of the seven fields, but omits count, start, pubyearfrom, and pubyearto. Given the low coverage, the description should compensate more, but it does highlight the primary identifiers. The schema itself provides titles and constraints for the remaining fields, so this is a partial compensation.

  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 a specific verb and resource: 'Return the volume/issue spine of a journal'. It also differentiates from siblings by asserting it is a 'Navigation aid, not literature retrieval', which precisely matches the listing vs. search/article functions. This leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

  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: this is for navigation, not literature retrieval. It implies when to use it (when you need the structural spine) and when not (for literature retrieval, likely using search or get-article siblings). It also names the key identifiers ('by material/issn/cdjournal') but does not explicitly mention alternative tool names or exact conditions for choosing this over siblings. This is close to full guidance, but not explicit exclusions.

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