Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• search_cometchat_docsA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so description does not need to reiterate safety. The description adds that it returns ranked snippets with titles and direct links, which is useful but not rich behavioral context beyond what a search tool implies.

  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?

  Three concise sentences: first captures purpose and scope, second describes output format, third mentions the optional version filter. No redundancies, well front-loaded, and every sentence serves a clear function.

  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?

  With 100% schema coverage and clear annotations, the description covers output format and the version filter. It does not explain pagination behavior for the `limit` parameter, but that is minimal. Overall sufficient for a search tool without output schema.

  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 100% with descriptions for all parameters. The description adds value by listing the content domains searched (SDK guides, UI Kit, etc.), which clarifies what the query parameter targets. No additional semantics for `limit` or `version` 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?

  Clearly lists the verb 'searches' and the resource 'CometChat documentation' with an extensive enumeration of covered content types (SDK guides, UI Kit, REST API, etc.). Distinguishes from sibling tools implicitly by focusing on search vs. fetch or implementation retrieval.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  No explicit guidance on when to use this tool over siblings (fetch_cometchat_doc_page, get_cometchat_implementation_bundle). Does not mention when not to use it or provide context for alternative tools.

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

• get_cometchat_implementation_bundleA
  4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true. The description adds behavioral context by detailing what the bundle includes (prerequisites, commands, code examples, pitfalls), which goes beyond the annotation. 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?

  Two concise sentences that front-load the core purpose and follow with useful detail. No extraneous words; 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 the tool's simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema), the description covers what to expect from the output. It lacks explicit format details but is sufficient for an agent to understand and invoke 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?

  Schema description coverage is 100%. The description mentions 'named CometChat integration scenario' and lists example platforms, reinforcing the parameter's purpose but not adding significant new information 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 returns a curated implementation bundle for a named integration scenario, listing included components. It distinguishes from sibling tools (fetch doc page, search docs) by focusing on bundles.

  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 implies when to use the tool (when needing an implementation bundle) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide direct comparison to sibling tools. Usage context is implied but not fully explicit.

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

• fetch_cometchat_doc_pageA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, confirming the tool is safe. The description adds value by stating the return format (markdown) and metadata (title, section), which is beneficial beyond the annotation. No side effects or rate limits are mentioned, but for a simple read tool this is sufficient.

  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 consists of two well-structured sentences with no extraneous information. The first sentence states the core function and output, the second clarifies input format. Every word earns its place.

  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 low complexity (1 parameter, simple read operation, annotations present, no output schema), the description is fully adequate. It covers the tool's purpose, input options, and output type, leaving no obvious gaps for an AI agent to misunderstand.

  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 100% for the single parameter 'path'. The description adds further clarity with concrete examples (full URL and relative path), which enhances understanding beyond the schema's description. This justifies a score above the baseline of 3.

  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 the full content of a single CometChat documentation page, distinguishing it from sibling tools like search (which returns snippets) and implementation bundle (different resource). The verb 'fetches' paired with 'documentation page' is specific and unambiguous.

  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 explains the input format (URL or path) with examples, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings (e.g., 'Use this when you need the full page content'). The usage is implied by the purpose, but no alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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