Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get_nearby_locationsB
  3/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but offers minimal information. It mentions what the tool does but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what the return format looks like. The description is functional but lacks depth for a tool with 3 parameters.

  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 and appropriately sized - a clear purpose statement followed by parameter explanations. Every sentence adds value, though the formatting with 'Args:' could be slightly more polished for MCP standards.

  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?

  For a tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It explains what the tool does and the parameters but doesn't cover return values, error conditions, or behavioral constraints. The agent would need to guess about the response format and operational characteristics.

  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 description adds meaningful context for all 3 parameters beyond the schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains that latitude/longitude are coordinates and provides examples for the category parameter ('hotels', 'restaurants', 'attractions'), which helps the agent understand how to use these parameters correctly.

  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's purpose with a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('locations near a specific latitude and longitude'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_locations' or 'get_location_details_tool', which prevents a perfect score.

  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 like 'search_locations' or 'plan_vacation'. There's no mention of prerequisites, constraints, or typical use cases, leaving the agent to guess based on tool names alone.

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

• search_locationsB
  3/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the search functionality but doesn't describe important behavioral aspects like whether results are paginated, what format they return, rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions. This leaves significant gaps for an agent trying to use the tool effectively.

  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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose. The parameter explanations are concise with helpful examples. The structure is logical with a clear heading for arguments, though it could be slightly more polished in formatting.

  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?

  For a search tool with 2 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the search returns (list of locations? with what fields?), how results are ordered, whether there are limitations on query length, or any error handling. The parameter semantics are well-explained, but other critical context is missing.

  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 description provides clear semantic meaning for both parameters with helpful examples ('hotels in Paris', 'hotels', 'restaurants', 'attractions'), which adds significant value beyond the 0% schema description coverage. The examples clarify how to format the query and what categories might be acceptable, compensating well for the lack of schema descriptions.

  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 verb ('Search') and resource ('locations on TripAdvisor'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_nearby_locations' or 'plan_vacation', which would require more specific scope definition.

  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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_nearby_locations' or 'plan_vacation'. The description only explains what the tool does, not when it's appropriate or what distinguishes it from other search/filtering tools in the same server.

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

• get_location_details_toolB
  3.1/5.0
  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 'Get essential details', implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'essential details' includes (e.g., format, completeness). For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

  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 appropriately sized with two sentences: one stating the purpose and one detailing the parameter. It's front-loaded with the core function. There's minimal waste, though the 'Args:' section could be integrated more smoothly.

  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 no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose and parameter semantics adequately but lacks behavioral details (e.g., response format, errors) and usage guidelines. For a simple lookup tool, it meets minimum viability but has clear gaps in context.

  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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by specifying 'location_id: TripAdvisor location ID', clarifying the source and type beyond the schema's 'integer' type. With only 1 parameter, this provides adequate semantic context, though it doesn't explain format constraints (e.g., valid ID ranges).

  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 verb 'Get' and resource 'essential details about a location by ID', with the specific context 'for trip planning'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_nearby_locations' (multiple locations) and 'search_locations' (search vs. get by ID), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'plan_vacation' which might be higher-level. The purpose is specific and actionable.

  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 like 'get_nearby_locations' or 'search_locations'. It mentions 'for trip planning', which gives some context but doesn't specify scenarios where this is preferred over siblings. There are no explicit when/when-not statements or named alternatives.

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

• plan_vacationB
  3.3/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the tool 'Initiates the vacation planning process' and returns a confirmation message, but lacks details on behavioral traits like whether it's interactive, requires user input later, has side effects (e.g., saving data), or any rate limits. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond its basic function.

  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 three sentences that are front-loaded: the first states the purpose, the second gives usage guidelines, and the third describes the return. There's no wasted text, but the structure could be slightly improved by integrating the return info more seamlessly, though it remains efficient.

  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 the tool has no parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides basic purpose, usage, and return info, which is adequate for a simple initiation tool. However, it lacks details on what 'structured prompt' means or how the planning process unfolds, making it incomplete for understanding the full context of use.

  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 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is acceptable here since there are no parameters to describe. It meets the baseline for tools with no parameters by not introducing confusion.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose3/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description states the tool 'Initiates the vacation planning process using the structured prompt,' which provides a verb ('Initiates') and resource ('vacation planning process'), but it's vague about what 'structured prompt' entails and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like get_location_details_tool or search_locations. It's clear enough to understand the general purpose but lacks specificity.

  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 explicitly states 'This should be used whenever a user wants to plan a trip or vacation,' providing clear context for when to use the tool. However, it doesn't mention when not to use it or alternatives among sibling tools, such as for detailed location searches, which limits the guidance to positive cases only.

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