Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• ragify_docs_mcpA
  3.7/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  The description states it returns 'raw, highly relevant text blocks,' implying a read-only, retrieval operation. No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does not mention any destructive actions, side effects, or additional behavioral details like pagination, authentication, or rate limits, but the basic non-destructive nature is clear.

  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 two sentences, the first stating the purpose and the second the output. It is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words. Every sentence earns its place.

  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 2 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema (not provided), the description adequately covers the core functionality but lacks details on prerequisites, error handling, or output format. The presence of an output schema partially offsets the need for return value explanations, but the description does not reference it, leaving some gaps for agent understanding.

  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 input schema has 0% coverage for parameter descriptions. The description adds meaning by implying 'url' is a documentation URL and 'query' is a search query, with the default query provided. However, it doesn't elaborate on query syntax or format. This adds some value but does not fully compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

  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 reference information, code blocks, and context from documentation URLs, specifying the resource type (programming framework, API, library, website) and the output (raw text blocks). It uses a specific verb ('fetch') and resource, making the purpose unambiguous. With no siblings, differentiation is not needed, but the description is clear enough.

  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 includes an explicit 'use this tool to fetch' directive, indicating when to use it. However, it does not provide alternatives or exclusions, such as when not to use it or what other tools might be better suited for different tasks. Given no siblings, this is acceptable but minimal, lacking depth for optimal guidance.

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