Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• toolkit_encode_valueA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the tool is safe and idempotent. The description adds valuable behavioral context, such as error handling for malformed decode values, which goes beyond 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 a single paragraph that is well-structured and concise. Every sentence adds important information without redundancy, making it easy for an AI agent to quickly grasp the tool's functionality.

  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 moderate complexity (4 encodings, 2 operations) and the presence of an output schema (not shown but referenced), the description covers all essential aspects: supported encodings, operation directions, and error behavior. No significant gaps remain.

  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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context by explaining that 'value' is raw text for encode and encoded string for decode, and clarifies the 'encoding' options with examples. This provides incremental value over the 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's purpose: encoding/decoding across base64, base64url, hex, and URL encodings. It specifies the operation (encode/decode) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like toolkit_hash_value, which handles hashing.

  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 guidance on when to use encode vs decode, and mentions that malformed decode values result in a recoverable error. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or list alternatives beyond the implicit sibling distinctions.

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

• toolkit_generate_qrA
  4.6/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond annotations: it discloses that png_base64 sizes are computed as (modules + 2 × margin) × scale pixels and rejects images over 2048 px with a typed error, svg has no size limit, and version reflects density. These details are not in the annotations, which only indicate read-only and idempotent behavior.

  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 packed with useful information in a single paragraph, but it is somewhat dense—it could be structured more clearly (e.g., separate output format details from scaling constraints). Every sentence adds value, but readability slightly suffers from the density.

  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 has an output schema (assumed from context), an input schema with 100% coverage, and clear annotations, the description is completely adequate. It covers constraints, return format nuances, and error conditions, leaving no significant gaps for the agent to guess.

  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 schema coverage is 100% with detailed descriptions for each parameter (e.g., data's maxLength and capacity interaction with errorCorrection, scale's interaction with png output bounds). The description adds value by explaining version output and error types (data_too_large, raster_too_large), improving over the schema alone.

  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 it encodes text or a URL into a QR code, specifying the resource ('data') and the verb ('encode'). It distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'toolkit_generate_id' by mentioning it for generating identifiers.

  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 on when to use each format (e.g., 'svg for inline markup,' 'terminal for monospace rendering'), but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool over siblings like 'toolkit_hash_value' or 'toolkit_encode_value'.

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

• toolkit_geolocate_ipA
  4.6/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the tool is safe to call and returns consistent results. The description goes far beyond these by disclosing SSRF-free direct provider calls, best-effort results, behaviors for absent fields (reported as unknown, never invented), the meaning of proxy/hosting/mobile flags, and rejection of private addresses. This is exceptionally transparent, with zero 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 comprehensive and front-loaded with key information in the first sentence. Every sentence adds value, but it is relatively long (8 sentences). While dense with useful detail, a slightly more compact version might improve scanability without losing information. Still, no filler or redundancy exists.

  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 single required parameter, 100% schema coverage, and inclusion of an output schema (not shown but referenced), the description covers all necessary context: input format, behavioral caveats (best-effort, flags interpretation, private address rejection), safety (SSRF-free), and return value characteristics. No gaps evident for this simple tool.

  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% with detailed formats and a clear description for target. The description adds value by explaining that hostnames are DNS-resolved first and that 'resolvedIp' field shows which IP was located, which is not in the schema. A minor point: the description could mention that providing a hostname will cause a DNS lookup, which may have performance implications, but this is covered well overall.

  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 uses specific verbs ('Resolve...to geographic and network metadata') and clearly lists the exact data fields returned (country, region, city, lat/lng, ASN, organization, timezone, proxy/hosting/mobile flags). It also differentiates from siblings by focusing on IP geolocation while others handle hashing, ID generation, QR codes, and encoding.

  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?

  It explicitly states acceptable inputs (public IPv4/IPv6 or hostname) and conditions when not to use it (private/reserved addresses are rejected). It also details limitations (VPNs, proxies, etc. defeat location). However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for cases like private IPs, and the sibling tools are entirely unrelated, so guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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

• toolkit_generate_idA
  4.9/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=false, which the description complements by clarifying non-idempotent behavior: each call mints new IDs. The description goes beyond annotations by guaranteeing that the returned ids array always contains exactly count values, is never truncated, and for uuid_v7 and ulid batches are monotonic and strictly increasing even within the same millisecond. No contradictions with 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 efficiently structured in 5 sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: opens with core purpose and when-to-use, explains type parameter with format implications, explains count parameter with behavior guarantee, adds behavioral detail for monotonicity, and concludes with cross-reference to a sibling tool. No filler or redundancy.

  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 2 simple parameters with 100% schema coverage, an output schema exists (so return format is documented), and annotations cover read-only and idempotency traits, the description provides complete context: covers both parameters, behavioral guarantees, output invariants, and cross-references to consumer tool. Nothing is missing for an agent to select and invoke this tool correctly.

  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% and parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds value by explaining the behavioral implications of type choices (time-ordered, sortable, lexicographically sortable) and the monotonic batch guarantee, which goes beyond what the enum descriptions provide. However, the schema already covers the basic meanings, so the baseline is 3 and the additional context raises it to 4.

  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 identifies the verb 'mint' and resource 'cryptographically-random identifiers', distinguishing it from siblings like toolkit_generate_qr (which consumes IDs) and toolkit_hash_value (which hashes, not generates). It clarifies that this is the correct source for unpredictable IDs, differentiating from model-generated values.

  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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'the correct source for IDs that must be unpredictable, unlike model-generated values'. It also gives a concrete sibling alternative by referencing toolkit_generate_qr: 'pass ids[0] as data to create a scannable code', and context signals show siblings toolkit_hash_value, toolkit_encode_value, toolkit_geolocate_ip are clearly different.

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

• toolkit_hash_valueA
  4.9/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, but the description adds significant behavioral context: timing safety of compare, algorithm security levels, input encoding handling, and the fact that binary blobs need no decode round-trip. No contradictions with 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 a single well-structured paragraph that front-loads the core purpose, then systematically covers operations, algorithms, input encoding, and a canonical use case. Every sentence adds necessary information without redundancy or filler.

  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 moderate complexity (5 parameters, all described in schema, output schema present, annotations provided), the description covers all key aspects: dual operations, algorithm choices with security implications, input encoding details, and a practical use case. There are no obvious gaps.

  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%, each parameter has a description. The tool description adds value beyond schema by explaining the practical semantics: e.g., inputEncoding avoids decode round-trips, algorithm security warnings, and that expected is required for compare. This extra context 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's two purposes: generating a cryptographic digest or verifying a value against an expected digest. It uses specific verbs ('Generate' and 'verify') and identifies the resource (a cryptographic hash). The tool is easily distinguished from sibling tools (encoding, ID generation, QR, geolocate) which have completely different functions.

  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 explains when to use each operation ('generate' vs 'compare') and provides critical usage warnings: compare is timing-safe, md5/sha1 are for checksum compatibility only and must not be used for security. It also gives a canonical use case (matching a download checksum), offering clear context for appropriate tool selection.

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