Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get_feed_itemsA
  3.5/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals ordering (newest first) and default limit (50), but omits pagination behavior, error handling, and return format, leaving significant behavioral 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?

  Two clear, front-loaded sentences with no wasted words. The first states purpose and default behavior; the second gives a helpful pointer to list-feeds.

  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?

  For a simple list tool, the description is adequate but missing a return format description since no output schema exists. It also doesn't explain pagination mechanics beyond the schema, leaving gaps in operational context.

  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 descriptions cover all four parameters at 100% coverage, so the description adds little parameter-specific meaning. Baseline of 3 is appropriate per rubric when schema does the heavy lifting.

  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 clearly states it gets items from a specific feed by feed ID, with ordering. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from get_recent_feed_items or other siblings, so it lacks explicit sibling distinction.

  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?

  It mentions using list-feeds to discover feed IDs, which is a useful prerequisite. But it does not discuss when to choose this tool over get_recent_feed_items or search_feed_items, leaving usage implied rather than explicitly guided.

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

• get_feed_item_detailsA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. 'Get' indicates a read-only operation, and 'full item details' suggests a comprehensive response, but it does not disclose behavior on missing items, the exact return structure, or the timezone formatting effect (though the schema mentions timeZone). Basic transparency is present, but richer context would be helpful.

  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 immediately states the action and required inputs. Every word contributes, with no redundancy or filler.

  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?

  This is a relatively simple detail-retrieval tool with only three parameters and no nested objects. The description, combined with full schema coverage and clear sibling context, is adequate for an agent to understand when and how to invoke it. However, it does not describe the return value structure, though no output schema exists; leaving some ambiguity, but the tool's simplicity limits the need.

  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 schema description coverage is 100%, with each parameter already documented (id, feedId, timeZone). The description restates the need for feed ID and feed item ID but adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the parameter semantics.

  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 retrieves full item details given two specific identifiers (feed ID and feed item ID). This is a specific verb-resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_feeds, get_feed_items, and search_feed_items, which focus on listing or searching.

  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 implies usage when you already have the feed ID and feed item ID and need the full details for a specific item. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the 'given the feed ID and feed item ID' prerequisite makes the intended context clear, especially against sibling context.

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

• list_feedsA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It discloses the default page size (50 feeds) and the purpose (feed discovery), but does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation or mention any other side effects. For a simple list operation, this is adequate but not rich.

  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: the first states the purpose and output, the second gives usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place, with no fluff.

  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 is complete for a straightforward list tool with three optional parameters. It covers the primary use case (discovering feed IDs), output fields, and a default. No output schema exists, but the description provides enough information for an agent to invoke it correctly.

  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%, with all three parameters (skip, limit, timeZone) having descriptions. The tool description adds minimal parameter-related detail beyond the schema, mentioning the default limit of 50. 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 clearly states a specific action and resource: 'List all available RSS/news feeds' and specifies the return fields (names, IDs, latest publish times). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that operate on feed items, not feeds themselves.

  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 gives explicit usage guidance: 'Call this first to discover feed IDs needed by other tools.' This tells the agent when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. Given the sibling tools are item-focused, the context is sufficiently clear.

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

• get_recent_feed_itemsA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

  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 discloses the default time window (120 minutes) and item count (50), and clarifies the cross-feed scope. It doesn't explicitly state read-only behavior or ordering, but the 'get' verb makes this an obvious read operation. The information provided is useful and adds 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?

  The description is only two sentences long, front-loaded with the action and purpose. It avoids fluff and every sentence contributes either the core functionality or a usage recommendation. This is exemplary conciseness.

  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 read-only tool with all parameters documented in the schema, the description captures the essential context: cross-feed scope and default time window. It doesn't describe the return format or pagination behavior, but those are common for such tools and can be inferred. Overall it is sufficiently complete for an agent to know when and why to invoke 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?

  All 4 parameters are fully described in the schema (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description repeats the defaults for recencyInMinutes and limit but adds no deeper meaning about parameter interactions, pagination mechanics, or timezone handling. It provides no additional value beyond the schema's parameter 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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('recent items across all feeds') and explicitly notes that it works 'without specifying a feed,' which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_feed_items. It is action-oriented and unambiguous.

  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?

  It provides clear usage context: 'Use this to catch up on the latest news without specifying a feed.' While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, the scope statement implies using a feed-specific tool when a particular feed is needed. This is adequate guidance but lacks explicit exclusions.

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

• search_feed_itemsA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It adds the default 50-item behavior and the ability to filter across all feeds or a specific feed. However, it does not disclose pagination behavior, search semantics (e.g., exact vs. fuzzy), or return format, leaving some ambiguity.

  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-loaded with the core action, and both sentences earn their place. No fluff or repetition of schema details except the useful default limit context.

  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 search tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main purpose and key behavioral detail (default 50). It does not elaborate on pagination or return structure, but the schema fills in parameter details, making it sufficiently complete.

  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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that feedId is a filter (optional) and the query applies across all feeds by default, supplementing the parameter descriptions. This helps the agent correctly use feedId and understand scope.

  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: searching feed items by query, with an optional feedId filter. The verb 'search' and resource 'feed items' are specific, and the distinction from sibling list/retrieval tools is evident because it emphasizes query-based search.

  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 on when to use the tool ('find items about a specific topic') and mentions the feedId filter option. It does not explicitly name alternative tools for different cases, but the usage context is sufficiently implied.

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