Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get_passageA
  4.8/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and excels by disclosing critical behavioral traits: it specifies the data source (BibleGateway.com), describes content processing (removes HTML, cleans spacing), handles multi-passage requests, and includes legal compliance details like copyright management and fair use. This provides comprehensive operational 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 well-structured with clear sections (Parameters, Usage Examples, Response Format, etc.), but it is overly verbose with redundant information (e.g., listing supported versions twice) and extensive legal disclaimers that could be condensed. While front-loaded with purpose, some sentences like the repeated version lists do not earn their place efficiently.

  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 (external API integration, content processing) and lack of annotations, the description is highly complete: it covers purpose, usage, parameters, examples, response format, legal compliance, and processing details. The output schema is noted as present, so the description appropriately focuses on operational context without needing to explain return values.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters5/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The schema has 0% description coverage, but the description fully compensates with detailed parameter documentation: it explains the 'passage' parameter with format rules, examples, and support for multiple references, and the 'version' parameter with default value, supported versions list, and optional status. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare 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 the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('retrieves', 'get') and resources ('Bible passages', 'BibleGateway.com'), including key capabilities like multiple translations and content cleaning. It distinguishes itself by mentioning automatic parsing and cleaning, which is specific and actionable for an AI agent.

  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 provides a 'When to Use This Tool' section with specific scenarios like 'Scripture study and research', 'Sermon preparation', and 'Cross-referencing verses across translations'. It also includes legal context about when usage is appropriate (educational, research, personal study), offering clear guidance despite no sibling tools to differentiate from.

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