Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• verify_c2pa_urlA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses network access (downloading) and URL restrictions. It mentions output equivalence with verify_c2pa_file, giving insight into return format. However, it lacks details on failure modes, size limits, or performance characteristics, leaving some gaps.

  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 three concise sentences, each serving a purpose: action, output, usage direction, and constraint. No wasted words, and the most important info is front-loaded.

  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 two parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the main behavioral points (network access, URL constraint, output similarity). It is sufficient for a tool that parallels an existing one. Minor omission: no mention of error handling or default for includeRaw (though schema covers it).

  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 baseline is 3. The description adds context by linking includeRaw to the sibling's behavior, but does not elaborate beyond what the schema provides. Adequate but not enhanced.

  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 downloads a remote file over https and verifies C2PA credentials. It lists supported media types and explicitly distinguishes from sibling verify_c2pa_file by saying 'Use this for a web URL.' The title and description align well.

  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 explicit guidance: 'Use this for a web URL' and notes that only public https URLs are allowed, with private/internal hosts refused. This helps the agent decide when to use this tool. However, it does not directly mention alternatives like c2pa_info or scan_c2pa_directory, but the sibling context is available.

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

• scan_c2pa_directoryA
  4.2/5.0
  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 non-recursiveness and the output fields (C2PA presence, verdict, signer, AI-generation). It implies a read-only audit, but does not explicitly state no modifications or permissions needed. Slightly under-disclosed, but still useful.

  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 with no wasted words. First sentence defines output scope, second sentence adds usage context and a key behavioral constraint. Highly efficient.

  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 specifies the outputs (C2PA credentials, verdict, signer, AI-generated) without an output schema, which is adequate. Parameter count is low and well-documented in schema. Sibling tools provide context. Could mention whether it only scans media files or include a brief example, but overall complete.

  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 100% with clear descriptions for both parameters (maxFiles with default and max, directory as path or URI). The tool description adds no further parameter-level details beyond the 'non-recursive' behavioral note, which is already stated. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

  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 audits a folder of media files and reports C2PA credentials, verdict, signer, and AI-generation status. It specifies non-recursive behavior, distinguishing it from sibling tools that operate on single files or URLs.

  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 includes an explicit usage directive ('Use this to triage a directory of images/videos at once'), providing clear context. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives, but sibling names imply differentiation.

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

• verify_c2pa_fileA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations provided, but the description discloses that the file is read locally and never uploaded, and enumerates the output fields (verdict, signer, AI-generated, etc.), which adds behavioral context beyond the schema.

  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 the tool's action and outputs, followed by usage guidance. No redundancy or unnecessary 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 tool with two parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description provides a good overview of the return values and privacy aspect. Could elaborate on the format of edit history or lineage, but overall sufficient.

  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 parameters are already well-documented. The description adds usage context ('Use this when you have a file path') but does not significantly augment the schema's parameter explanations.

  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: verifying C2PA content credentials of local files. It lists outputs and differentiates from verify_c2pa_url by specifying local file path usage.

  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 guidance to use when there is a file path on disk, and notes the file is read locally and never uploaded. Does not explicitly mention when not to use or list alternatives, but context is clear enough.

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

• c2pa_infoA
  4.6/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly states what information is reported (version, media types, trust-list), implying a read-only, non-destructive operation. While it does not explicitly declare safety, 'Report' suggests no side effects. A score of 4 is appropriate as it is clear but could be more explicit about being read-only.

  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 two sentences, front-loading the key information ('Report the verification engine version, the media types this server can verify, and the active trust-list configuration') followed by a usage hint. Every sentence adds value with no wasted words.

  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 no parameters and no output schema, the description reasonably covers what the tool does. However, it does not describe the output format or structure (e.g., JSON, fields), which would help the agent interpret results. Slight gap prevents a 5.

  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 zero parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description adds meaning by specifying the content of the report (version, media types, trust-list), which complements the empty schema. No further parameter detail is needed.

  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 the tool reports 'verification engine version, media types this server can verify, and active trust-list configuration'. The verb 'Report' clearly indicates a read operation, and the resource is well-defined. It also distinguishes from sibling tools (verify_c2pa_file, verify_c2pa_url, scan_c2pa_directory) which perform verification actions.

  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 includes 'Use this to check capabilities before verifying', providing explicit guidance on when to use the tool (before verification). Given the sibling tools are verification-focused, this advice is highly actionable and clarifies context.

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