Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• normaC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations provided, so description must convey behavior. It states the tool retrieves data in JSON format but does not mention read-only nature, idempotency, or any side effects. Lacks disclosure of cache behavior beyond schema parameter ttl.

  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?

  Two sentences, efficient and front-loaded with purpose. No verbose or redundant content, but could be slightly expanded for completeness without losing conciseness.

  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 5 parameters, required fields, output schema, and sibling tools, the description is minimal. It does not explain what JSON format contains, nor how it relates to search or schema tools. Missing context for effective agent use.

  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 baseline 3. Description adds little beyond the schema; it does not explain parameter semantics further. The schema already describes each parameter sufficiently.

  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?

  Description clearly states 'Get a specific norma or aviso from IMPO', specifying verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'bases', 'schema', or 'search'.

  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 (bases, schema, search). There is no description of prerequisites or contextual triggers.

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

• searchB
  3.4/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as idempotency, cache behavior (though ttl parameter exists), or any side effects. The read-only nature of a search is implied but not explicitly stated, requiring the agent to assume based on the tool name.

  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, completely front-loaded with the main purpose. Every word serves a function. No extraneous information.

  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 existence of an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete for a search tool. It covers the core functionality and filtering options. Minor missing context like pagination defaults are handled by 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 coverage is 100% with well-described parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, essentially reiterating that results can be filtered. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already does heavy lifting.

  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 states the tool searches for normas or avisos in the IMPO database, using the verb 'search' and specifying the resource. It effectively conveys the tool's purpose, though it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'norma' or 'bases'.

  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 mentions filtering by type and year, implying usage for legislative searches. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use the tool or alternatives among siblings, leaving the agent to infer context.

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

• basesA
  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 carries full burden. It indicates the tool is read-only (returns metadata) and specifies the source (IMPO's datos abiertos service). However, it does not disclose caching behavior or any other side effects, though the TTL parameter implies caching.

  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 very concise: one sentence defining purpose, one sentence elaborating on the return type. No unnecessary words or repetition. Front-loaded with the key action.

  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?

  For a simple listing tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description is complete. It clarifies the resource ('bases' = databases in IMPO) and the return content (metadata and structure). Could be slightly more explicit about the meaning of 'bases' for users unfamiliar with IMPO.

  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% for the only parameter (ttl), and its description in the schema is clear. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what is already in the schema, thus baseline 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 retrieves information about available bases (databases) in IMPO, using a specific verb 'Get' and resource 'bases'. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on listing all available databases, while siblings like 'schema' likely deal with individual schemas.

  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 versus alternatives. The description only states what it does, not when it should be used over 'norma', 'schema', or 'search'. The agent must infer from context.

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

• schemaA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It correctly indicates the tool is read-only (retrieving schema) and describes the return content, but does not mention caching behavior, authentication needs, or potential side effects beyond default TTL in the parameter.

  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 extremely concise—two sentences that front-load the action and then provide necessary detail. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

  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 is simple (one parameter, output schema exists), the description adequately explains the purpose and content. It doesn't need to detail return values because the output schema handles that. A slightly higher score could be justified, but it lacks explicit note about cache parameter usage.

  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 coverage is 100%, and the single parameter 'ttl' is fully documented in the schema with description. The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

  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 retrieves the JSON schema documentation for IMPO's datos abiertos API, specifying it covers norms and official notices. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'norma' and 'search' by focusing on schema structure rather than data retrieval.

  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 the tool is for understanding data structure before querying, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings or provide prerequisites. Usage guidance is implied but not direct.

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