Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• markdown_to_docxB
  3.1/5.0
  Behavior1/5

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

  Annotations claim readOnlyHint=true, but the tool creates an output file, contradicting read-only behavior. Description does not clarify side effects, file creation, or error handling. Annotation contradiction detected.

  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?

  Purpose is front-loaded in a single sentence, followed by a structured parameter list. However, the list duplicates schema details and could be more succinct.

  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?

  Lacks return value details, error handling, or behavior on success/failure. With no output schema, agent has no information about what the tool returns.

  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 defaults (e.g., 'Defaults to false' for toc, strictMarkdown, overwrite) and clarifies auto-derivation for outputPath, providing value beyond 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?

  Clearly states 'Convert a Markdown file to DOCX (Word) format using Pandoc.' Verb and resource are specific, and the tool is distinct from siblings like batch_convert, docx_to_markdown, etc.

  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 like markdown_to_pdf or batch_convert. No conditions, exclusions, or prerequisites mentioned.

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

• markdown_to_pdfB
  3.1/5.0
  Behavior1/5

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

  Annotations include readOnlyHint=true, but the description implies creating an output file (conversion to PDF). This is a contradiction. The description fails to clarify side effects like file creation, overwriting, or the use of external tools (Pandoc).

  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 front-loaded with the purpose sentence, but the rest is a parameter list that largely repeats the schema. It could be more concise by grouping related options or removing redundant explanations.

  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?

  Covers all 11 parameters with some added context. However, lacks behavioral information (e.g., what happens if output exists, dependencies on Pandoc installation) and usage scenarios. Output schema is absent, but schema coverage is high.

  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%. The description adds value by stating defaults (pageSize defaults to 'A4'), providing examples (cjkMainFont), and clarifying behavior (leave pdfEngine unset for auto). This exceeds the baseline 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?

  Clearly states it converts a Markdown file to PDF using Pandoc. The verb 'Convert' and resource 'Markdown file to PDF format' are specific. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like markdown_to_html or docx_to_markdown.

  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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like batch_convert. The description only lists parameters 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.

• batch_convertB
  3.3/5.0
  Behavior1/5

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

  Description contradicts annotations: 'Convert' implies mutation but readOnlyHint=true declares read-only. Also no mention of error handling beyond individual failures not aborting batch.

  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?

  Description is structured but verbose; parameter list duplicates schema content. Could be more concise while preserving key behavioral notes.

  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?

  Covers all seven parameters and highlights batch failure behavior, but lacks description of return values or error handling beyond individual failures, leaving some context incomplete.

  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 meaning: clarifies paths are relative to workspace, lists allowable enum values, and specifies defaults for optional boolean 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 verb 'Convert' and the resource 'all matching files in a directory', distinguishing it from sibling single-format conversion tools.

  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 use for batch conversions but does not explicitly specify when to use this tool versus sibling single-file tools or mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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

• markdown_to_htmlA
  3.7/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  The description adds parameter details (defaults, strictMarkdown behavior) but fails to correct the contradictory annotation readOnlyHint=true, which is misleading for a write operation. This inconsistency reduces transparency.

  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 well-structured with a clear list of arguments, each with name, type, and purpose. It is concise without unnecessary fluff, though slightly longer due to parameter details.

  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 conversion tool with no output schema, the description covers essential aspects: input/output paths, options like CSS and strictness, and defaults. It lacks error handling details but is otherwise complete given the tool's simplicity.

  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 listing defaults for optional parameters (e.g., standalone=true, overwrite=false) and elaborating on behavior like strictMarkdown rejection, enhancing 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 the tool converts Markdown to HTML using Pandoc, specifying verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like batch_convert and markdown_to_pdf by focusing on single-file conversion to HTML.

  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?

  Usage context is implied through the tool name and description, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like batch_convert for multiple files or markdown_to_pdf for PDF output.

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

• docx_to_markdownA
  4.1/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, but the description indicates writing output, contradicting readOnlyHint. However, the description discloses all defaults and parameter behaviors, adding value beyond annotations.

  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 concise with a clear first sentence and a well-organized parameter list. It is efficient but could be more structured with separate sections.

  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 8 parameters, no output schema, and full schema coverage, the description covers all parameters with defaults. Lacks examples or error handling but sufficient for a conversion 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 the description adds defaults for parameters like engine, markdownFlavor, overwrite, etc., providing extra semantics beyond the 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?

  The description clearly states the tool converts DOCX to Markdown, specifying the verb 'Convert' and the resources. It differentiates from siblings like pdf_to_markdown and markdown_to_docx.

  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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like batch_convert or when not to use it. It defaults to single file conversion without mention of batch processing.

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

• pdf_to_markdownA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations (readOnly, idempotent) are consistent. Description adds behavioral details: engine fallback, sidecar checking, default overwrite false, and conversion limitations. 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?

  Well-structured with clear sections: intent, warnings, parameter details. Each sentence carries weight; no redundancy. Slightly verbose but justified given complexity.

  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?

  Lacks output schema, but description explains output is Markdown. Missing details on exact format (page breaks, metadata), error handling, or performance. Acceptable given parameter coverage and annotations.

  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 meaningful nuance: engine defaults and fallback, outputPath auto-naming, sidecar file pattern, and cleaning purpose. Goes beyond schema documentation.

  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 extracts text content from PDF to Markdown, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing content extraction vs layout reconstruction and noting limitations (scanned PDFs, complex tables).

  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?

  Provides explicit warnings about unreliable conversions (scanned PDFs, tables, math) and OCR requirements. Also explains sidecar behavior as the only reliable recovery method. Lacks explicit comparison to sibling tools but imparts clear context.

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