Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• viruagent_list_categoriesC
  2.7/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations provided, and description only says 'view category list'. Does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, if authentication is needed, or any side effects. For a list operation, it likely is safe, but this is not stated.

  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?

  Extremely concise: a single short phrase in Korean. No unnecessary words, but could benefit from an English translation or slight expansion for clarity.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness3/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given low complexity (one optional parameter with enum, no output schema), the description is adequate but incomplete. Misses parameter explanation and output description, making it minimally viable.

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

  Parameters1/5

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

  Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention the 'provider' parameter, its enum values, or default. The description adds no value beyond what the schema already provides.

  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 states 'Provider category list view', which clearly indicates the tool lists categories for providers. While it distinguishes from sibling tools (publish, read, save) by naming the resource, it could be more explicit about the action being listing.

  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 versus alternatives. Does not mention prerequisites, context, or when to choose another tool.

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

• viruagent_read_postB
  3.1/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations provided. Description does not disclose permissions, rate limits, side effects, or behavior for missing posts. For a read operation, safety is implied but not stated.

  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?

  Single short sentence with no wasted words, but could benefit from slightly more detail. Efficient yet minimal.

  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?

  No output schema; description does not explain return structure beyond 'content/thumbnail'. Missing details on provider and includeDraft behavior. Incomplete for a 3-param tool with no output 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 67% with descriptions for postId and includeDraft; description adds no parameter detail beyond schema. Baseline 3 applies as schema covers most.

  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?

  Description uses specific verb '조회' (retrieve) and resource '글 본문/썸네일' (post content/thumbnail), clearly distinguishing from sibling tools like publish or list_categories.

  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 versus alternatives (e.g., vs save_draft for drafts). The description only states the action without context for selection.

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

• viruagent_publishB
  3.3/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It discloses the 403 fallback to draft, which is important, but does not cover other aspects like authentication, idempotency, or whether it updates existing posts. This is adequate but minimal.

  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 a single sentence that is very concise and front-loaded with the action. It is efficient but could include more detail without being verbose.

  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 13 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too brief. It does not explain return values, error handling beyond 403, or detailed fallback behavior. More context is needed for a tool of this complexity.

  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 high (85%), so the schema already explains most parameters. The description does not add any additional meaning to parameters beyond what is in the schema. A baseline of 3 is appropriate.

  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 attempts to publish a post with title/content and falls back to draft on 403 error. While it distinguishes from siblings by mentioning draft fallback, it could be more explicit about its primary purpose versus viruagent_save_draft.

  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 publishing with automatic draft fallback, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus viruagent_save_draft or other siblings. The fallback behavior is mentioned but not compared to alternatives.

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

• viruagent_save_draftA
  3.8/5.0
  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 image placeholder replacement is identical to publish, which is useful behavioral info. However, it omits other important behaviors like whether drafts can be overwritten, required permissions, or output format.

  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 with two short sentences. No unnecessary words, every sentence provides relevant information. It is front-loaded with the core action.

  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 the tool has 11 parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the purpose of many parameters, how to use image URLs, the effect of enforceSystemPrompt, or what happens on success/failure. Significant 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 very high (91%), so baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, only reiterating title/content and the image replacement behavior. It does not explain how parameters like imageUrls interact with autoUploadImages or relatedImageKeywords.

  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 saves a draft with title and content, and distinguishes it from 'publish' by explicitly mentioning that image placeholder replacement is performed the same as publish. The verb and resource are specific and not a tautology.

  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 provides clear context by comparing behavior with the sibling 'publish' tool, implying that this tool is for saving drafts rather than publishing. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or direct mention of alternatives.

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