Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• create-linkB
  3.2/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It only says 'create' but discloses no side effects, permissions, return format, error behavior, or any other behavioral traits. Similar to the update_drive example, this lacks required transparency for a mutation tool.

  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 a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the core action and key features. No wasted words or redundant information.

  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?

  The tool has 8 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema or annotations, yet the description is minimal. It doesn't mention return values, side effects, or how the parameters work together. The schema covers parameter details but the overall context is insufficient for reliable use.

  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?

  The input schema has 100% parameter description coverage, so the schema already explains each parameter. The description adds a high-level categorization (platform-specific, social previews, UTM tracking) but no additional semantic detail. Baseline 3 applies per instructions.

  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 creates a Limelink dynamic link, with specific features listed (platform-specific deep linking, social previews, UTM tracking). The verb 'create' unambiguously distinguishes it from sibling retrieval tools like get-link-by-suffix and get-link-by-url.

  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?

  The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, when to choose creation over retrieval, or any exclusions. This is a clear gap.

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

• get-link-by-suffixA
  3.6/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Look up', which implies a read-only operation, but does not disclose potential side effects, return format, authentication needs, error behavior, or whether the tool modifies anything. This goes beyond what the schema provides.

  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?

  A single sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource, containing no redundant words or restatements. It is maximally concise while still conveying the core purpose.

  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 tool is a simple lookup operation, and the schema covers all parameters. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the description does not mention what is returned (e.g., the full link details) or any edge cases, leaving a slight gap in completeness despite the low 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?

  The input schema already provides 100% coverage for both parameters (suffix and project_id), including descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level detail, so the 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 states a specific action ('Look up') on a specific resource ('Limelink dynamic link') with a specific lookup key ('suffix'), clearly distinguishing it from the sibling 'get-link-by-url' which uses a URL as the key.

  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 when you have a suffix, but it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus the sibling 'get-link-by-url' or provide any exclusion guidance. The context of sibling names makes the distinction apparent, but it is only implied, not stated.

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

• get-link-by-urlA
  4/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose whether this is a read-only operation, what the return value looks like, or any error behavior. The only behavioral addition is the URL format support, which is minimal.

  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 exactly two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and contains no redundant or filler content. Every clause provides necessary 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 simple lookup tool with fully documented parameters, the description covers the core purpose and URL format limitations. It does not describe return values or error conditions, but given the simplicity and schema coverage, this is an acceptable gap.

  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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the two accepted URL formats, giving more meaning to the 'url' parameter beyond the schema's generic description. No info on project_id, but schema covers it.

  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 looks up a Limelink dynamic link by its full URL, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get-link-by-suffix (lookup by suffix) and create-link (creation).

  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 useful context by listing the supported URL formats (Free and Pro), which helps users understand when this tool is applicable. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for a differentiated tool.

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