Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• foura_browserA
  4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  The description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: JavaScript execution, DOM rendering, cookie return, SSRF_blocked for private targets, error envelopes for checkText/checkStatus, and offload_large behavior. Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, so the loading action is appropriately framed as a read operation. No 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 tightly written with no redundancy. It front-loads the core purpose ('Load a public URL in a full browser session') and then efficiently adds key behaviors, usage notes, and parameter guidance in a compact paragraph. Every sentence contributes essential 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?

  For a tool with 10 parameters, nested objects, and a complex behavior (full browser, cookies, proxy, challenges, offload), the description covers all critical aspects: loading, JS, cookies, proxy reuse, unblocker flag, error handling (checkText/checkStatus, ssrf_blocked), offload, and timeout. Output schema exists and is not expected to be described. Minor omission: no mention of rate limits or authentication requirements.

  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 input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions, and the tool description adds further meaning: for proxy, it explains three forms (URL, base36 ID from foura_proxy, or omit); for cookies, it clarifies structure and domain scoping; for unblocker, it states default and use case. This adds value beyond the schema.

  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 loads a public URL in a full browser session with JavaScript, DOM rendering, and cookies. It specifies use cases (SPAs, lazy-loaded content, browser challenges) and implicitly differentiates from siblings by mentioning 'full browser', but does not explicitly contrast with foura_auto or foura_single.

  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 gives clear guidance on when to use (SPAs, lazy-loaded, challenges) and when not to (protected pages should use foura_proxy first). It also explains parameter usage (unblocker:false for raw page). However, it does not explicitly describe conditions for choosing foura_auto or foura_single.

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

• foura_proxyA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral context beyond that: automatic retry, the response including the proxy ID, and its reuse/exclusion with ignoreProxies. No contradictions.

  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 purpose, no fluff. Each sentence contributes: what it does, when to use it, and how to work with the response.

  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?

  The description covers the essential decision points (when to use, exit countries, JavaScript handling, proxy reuse) and is supported by a rich schema and output schema. It does not detail parameters like maxTries or offload_large, but those are well-documented in 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description mentions exitCountries and request.browser/os/version, but these are already in the schema; it adds no new per-parameter meaning beyond connecting proxy ID reuse to ignoreProxies.

  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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Route an HTTP request through rotating proxies with automatic retry.' It explicitly distinguishes this tool from siblings by naming foura_single and foura_browser, making its role clear.

  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?

  Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use it when foura_single is blocked or the target requires a specific exit country' and 'Use foura_browser when the page needs JavaScript.' This gives clear context and names alternative tools.

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

• foura_singleA
  4.7/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: it performs a single request, does not execute JavaScript, and can present as different browsers when defaults are refused. This goes beyond annotations without contradicting them.

  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: purpose, use cases, and alternative tool guidance. No filler, front-loaded with the core function, and every sentence serves a clear role. Ideal length for a tool description.

  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 rich input schema (20 parameters with full descriptions), output schema, and annotations, the description fills the remaining gap: it provides high-level selection guidance and distinguishes this tool from siblings. No critical missing information for an agent to choose and invoke it 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%, so the schema documents all parameters. The description adds contextual meaning for browser/os/version parameters ('Set browser, os, or version when a target refuses the default Chrome'), which is not present in the schema, enhancing an agent's understanding of when to adjust these parameters.

  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: 'Send one HTTP request and return the response.' It specifies target use cases (static pages, JSON APIs, server-rendered HTML) and differentiates from siblings by directing users to foura_proxy for blocked responses and foura_browser for JavaScript-dependent pages.

  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?

  Explicit guidance on when to use the tool ('static pages, JSON APIs, and server-rendered HTML') and when to switch to alternatives ('Switch to foura_proxy if the response is blocked, and use foura_browser when the page needs JavaScript'). It also advises adjusting browser/os/version when the default Chrome is refused.

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

• foura_autoA
  4.9/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  Beyond the readOnlyHint/destructiveHint annotations, the description adds valuable behavioral context: "Auto makes bounded attempts and returns either validated content or a failure; it cannot guarantee a match." It also discloses response contents (completion details, reusable session values) and the validation fallback for protected targets. No contradiction 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 four sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then usage context, a key validation tip, behavior/response details, and alternatives. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff or repetition of schema content.

  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 (11 params, nested objects, output schema), the description provides the missing high-level context: default use case, limitation (no guarantee), validation strategy, response highlights, and sibling differentiation. The presence of an output schema covers return-value details, making this complete.

  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 the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful parameter guidance by highlighting `validate.data.accept` for protected targets and mentioning "reusable session values" (relating to `returnSession`). This goes beyond simply restating schema descriptions without redundant explanation.

  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 function: "Give it a public URL and get the content back." It also explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings by positioning it as the default when not choosing between HTTP, proxy rotation, and a full browser, and names alternative tools (foura_single, foura_proxy) for lower-level control.

  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?

  Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: "This is the default when you don't want to choose between HTTP, proxy rotation, and a full browser." Also gives clear exclusion criteria: "Use a lower-level tool when you need direct control over HTTP, proxy selection, or browser navigation, or to choose which browser is presented to the target." This fully satisfies the dimension.

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