Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• metaso_chatC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool returns responses but does not mention any side effects, authorization needs, rate limits, or whether the chat is stateless. The description is insufficient for the agent to assess potential impacts.

  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 exceptionally concise, consisting of two short sentences that front-load the core purpose ('Chat with Metaso AI assistant') and then add relevant detail. Every sentence earns its place with no superfluous content.

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

  Completeness2/5

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

  Given the tool has 5 parameters (including stream and scope) and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It does not explain the response format, behavior of streaming, or how the scope parameter affects results. The agent would need to infer these from the schema alone, which is insufficient.

  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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds 'search-enhanced AI models' and mentions multiple models/output formats, which slightly supplements the schema but does not provide significant new meaning beyond what the schema already offers.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose4/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly identifies the tool as a chat interface with a Metaso AI assistant, using verbs like 'Chat' and 'Get'. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools such as metaso_reader and metaso_search, which could cause confusion about the specific use case.

  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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like metaso_search or metaso_reader. The description lacks any mention of appropriate contexts or exclusions, leaving the agent without decision-making support.

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

• metaso_searchB
  3.4/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Only states 'search the internet' without disclosing rate limits, authentication needs, side effects, or result format.

  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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no redundant information.

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

  Completeness2/5

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

  Despite 6 parameters and no output schema, the description omits details on pagination, mutual exclusion of page/size, and return value structure. Incomplete for effective use.

  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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by elaborating on scope enum values (e.g., 'academic papers' for 'scholar') beyond the brief 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?

  Clear verb 'search' and specific resource 'internet using Metaso AI search engine'. The list of supported scopes clearly differentiates from sibling tools like metaso_chat and metaso_reader.

  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 guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (metaso_chat, metaso_reader). Lacks context for selection or exclusions.

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

• metaso_readerA
  3.6/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions reading and extracting content, but omits details such as how JavaScript-rendered pages are handled, whether there are rate limits, or if the API performs any redirects. The description is basic but not misleading.

  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, containing only two sentences that directly state the purpose and output format. No unnecessary words or repetition, and the key aspects are front-loaded.

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

  Completeness2/5

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

  The tool lacks an output schema, so the description should compensate by explaining return value structure (e.g., whether JSON includes metadata). It does not mention error handling, content length limits, or dynamic content behavior. This leaves uncertainty for an agent using the tool.

  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 already describes both parameters (url and format) comprehensively, with 100% coverage. The description adds minor value by noting 'full text content' and specifying the output formats, but does not significantly enhance understanding 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 reads and extracts content from web pages using Metaso API, and specifies the output as full text in markdown or JSON. This is distinct from sibling tools metaso_chat (conversational) and metaso_search (searching), making the purpose 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 implies usage for reading a specific URL, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings (e.g., use when you need raw content from a page, not when you need to search or chat). No exclusion criteria or alternative guidance is provided.

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