Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• find_tool_mentionsA
  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 discloses the returned data (tool names, descriptions, GitHub URLs, issue context) and mentions optional filtering. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, nor does it describe pagination, rate limits, or behavior when no results are found. The description is adequate but could be richer.

  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 with two sentences. The first sentence states the purpose and output, the second adds the filtering option. No extraneous information, and key details are front-loaded.

  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 simplicity of the tool (two parameters, no output schema), the description covers the main points: what it finds, what it returns, and optional filtering. It does not mention sorting or error handling, but for a straightforward search tool, it is largely sufficient. Minor omissions prevent a perfect score.

  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% (both query and limit parameters are described). The description adds marginal value by explaining the optional keyword filter in broader terms ('related to a specific technology or capability'). With high schema coverage, the baseline is 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 action ('Find'), the specific resource ('community tools, GitHub projects, and open-source resources mentioned in Entra.news'), and what it returns. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (get_issue, list_issues, search_entra_news) by focusing solely on tool mentions.

  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 (to find tool mentions) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives. Sibling tools exist for general issue search, but no comparison is made. Usage context is implied rather than explicit.

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

• list_issuesA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns a list of issues with title, date, and URL, and that filtering is optional. However, it omits behavioral details like default ordering, pagination behavior (beyond schema), and read-only nature.

  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 with no redundancy. First sentence states action and filtering, second sentence describes output, third sentence provides usage context. 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 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides adequate completeness. It explains return fields, filtering, and usage context. Some details like pagination default (50) and offset are left to schema, but description is sufficient for correct invocation.

  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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value beyond schema: it mentions 'optional year/month filtering' and that month requires year (already in schema). No additional semantics for limit/offset.

  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 ('browse', 'returns a list') and clearly identifies the resource ('Entra.news archive'). It distinguishes from sibling tools by advising usage before get_issue or search_entra_news.

  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?

  Explicitly states when to use the tool ('to discover what issues exist before using get_issue or search_entra_news'), providing clear context for choosing between siblings. Lacks explicit when-not guidance but is sufficient.

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

• search_entra_newsA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. Discloses date range (mid-2023 to present), hybrid search dependency on OPENAI_API_KEY, and return fields. Lacks details on pagination, error handling, or empty query behavior.

  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 sentences, front-loaded with core action, no filler. Efficiently covers purpose, date range, and search modes.

  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?

  Adequately describes input, date range, search modes, and output nature for a search tool with no output schema. Could mention result ordering or more on hybrid search behavior.

  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 3. Description adds valuable context: query is versatile, limit default and max, mode enum with hybrid as default and semantic requiring API key.

  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 states it searches the full Entra.news archive using natural language or keywords, returning sourced excerpts with issue number, date, and URL. Distinct from siblings like get_issue (single issue) and list_issues (list issues).

  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?

  Provides context on search modes and API key requirement for semantic search, but does not explicitly guide when to use this vs. alternatives like get_issue or find_tool_mentions.

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

• get_issueA
  4.1/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It accurately implies a read-only operation ('Retrieve'), and mentions return format ('complete text... with section headings preserved'). However, it does not disclose potential errors or restrictions (e.g., if issue not found), but for a simple retrieval this is adequate.

  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, each earning its place: first states the action and inputs, second details the output. No filler, front-loaded with verb and resource.

  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 simplicity (2 optional params, no output schema), the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, how to specify the issue, and what the response includes. No gaps remain.

  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% with clear descriptions for both parameters. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema (reiterates 'by issue number or publication date'), so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

  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 verb (Retrieve) and resource (specific Entra.news issue) and distinguishes from sibling tools like list_issues (which lists issues) and search_entra_news (which searches news). It specifies the two identification methods: by issue number or publication date.

  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 provides clear context (use when you need full content of a specific issue) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. It is implied that this tool is for a single issue, while siblings handle lists or search, but no direct comparison.

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