Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• search_archiveA
  3.6/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations, the description fails to disclose behavioral traits beyond listing parameters and output format. It does not mention any side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or important constraints, leaving agents with minimal behavioral context.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness3/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single paragraph that lists parameters in a run-on sentence; it is not overly long but lacks structured formatting. It is adequate but not highly concise or well-organized.

  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 complexity (19 parameters, no output schema), the description provides sufficient context by listing parameters, their meanings, and the return format (markdown table). It is reasonably complete for an agent to understand usage.

  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 19 parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful extra context such as dot-delimited boards, date format, page indexing, and output columns, which enhances 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 'Full-text search across archived 4chan posts' with a specific verb and resource, and the sibling tools get_thread, get_post, and list_boards are distinct, so agents can differentiate.

  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 searching across posts, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_thread or get_post, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites.

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

• get_postA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Discloses return fields (author, date, board, thread number, subject, content, media) and special num format for ghost posts. No annotations provided, so description carries full burden; it is adequate for a read retrieval tool.

  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: first states purpose, second enumerates return fields. No redundant information, front-loaded with key info.

  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?

  Describes return format adequately given no output schema. Could mention error handling (e.g., post not found) but overall sufficient for a simple retrieval 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 coverage is 100%, but description adds value by explaining board is shortname and num can include _ suffix for ghost posts. Provides context beyond 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?

  Clearly states the tool retrieves a single post from a 4chan archive by board and post number. Distinguishes from siblings like get_thread (whole thread) and search_archive (search).

  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?

  Explains use of board (shortname) and num (with ghost post suffix) parameters, implying when to use this tool. Does not explicitly state when not to use or contrast with siblings, but sibling names provide enough context.

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

• get_threadA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses key behaviors: returns OP and replies with fields, supports incremental fetch, and last_limit behavior. However, it omits potential traits like rate limits or authentication, which are not critical for this read-only tool.

  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 effectively cover purpose, parameters, and return format with no redundancy or irrelevant details. Every word adds value.

  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 complexity (4 params, no output schema), the description fully explains what the tool does, its parameters, and the return structure, making it self-sufficient for an agent to invoke 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 coverage is 100%, providing baseline clarity. The description adds extra context (e.g., 'incremental fetch, returns only newer posts') that goes beyond schema descriptions, enhancing understanding.

  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 states 'Retrieve all posts in a thread from a 4chan archive' with specific parameters and return format, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_archive, get_post, and list_boards.

  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 explains each parameter's purpose and usage (e.g., incremental fetch, last_limit default), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. However, the purpose is clear enough for an agent to infer.

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

• list_boardsA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses behavior: no parameters, returns a markdown table with specific columns (Board, Name) plus site name and search-enabled board count. No mention of side effects, but none expected.

  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: first sentence states action and resource, second sentence clarifies parameters and output format. No wasted words.

  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?

  For a simple list tool with no parameters, the description is complete. Specifies output format (markdown table with columns), site name, and count. No output schema, so this description adequately covers what the agent needs to know.

  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?

  No parameters exist, so schema coverage is 100%. Description adds no parameter info because none are needed. Baseline for 0 parameters is 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 clearly states 'List all available boards on the configured 4chan archive', specifying the verb (list), resource (boards), and context (4chan archive). It distinguishes from siblings like search_archive, get_thread, and get_post which have different actions.

  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 says 'No parameters required', indicating when to use (simple list without input). Does not explicitly mention when not to use, but sibling tools (search, get thread/post) provide natural alternatives for different needs.

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