Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• mek_get_recordA
  4.3/5.0
  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 states the tool is for fetching metadata (a read operation) and lists what is returned. It does not mention destructive behavior or auth requirements, but for a simple get-record tool, this is adequate and transparent.

  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 concise with two sentences. The first sentence states the action and returns, the second provides usage context. It is front-loaded and every sentence is informative without waste.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness5/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a simple get-record tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description is complete. It explains the tool's functionality, when to use it, and lists the return fields (mek_id, url, title, themes, subjects, description, date_added, urn), which compensates for the lack of an explicit output schema in the description.

  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?

  There is only one parameter (mek_id_or_url) with 100% schema description coverage. The description reiterates the parameter's purpose (MEK identifier or URL) but does not add significant new semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 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 it fetches metadata of a single MEK record, listing specific fields like title, authors, themes, subjects, description, dates, identifiers. It also provides usage examples (inspect/classify hits) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools (search, browse) by focusing on individual record retrieval.

  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 says 'Use it to inspect / classify individual hits', providing clear guidance on when to use the tool. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives, the context of sibling tools and the specific use case make the intended usage clear.

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

• mek_advanced_searchA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses the return structure ({total, offset, hits, has_more, accent_fallback_used}), accent fallback behavior, and controlled vocabulary matching. Missing explicit rate limits or error handling, but overall transparent.

  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 concise and well-structured: first sentence states purpose, followed by field list, typical patterns, and return structure. No unnecessary words, and key information is front-loaded.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness5/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the complexity (4 parameters, nested conditions, output schema exists), the description is highly complete. It covers field list, patterns, controlled vocabulary, accent behavior, and return shape. Only minor details (like pagination limit) are in schema but not repeated, which is acceptable.

  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 baseline 3. The description adds value beyond schema by providing examples (e.g., full JSON for conditions), explaining field usage (e.g., author vs. subject), and clarifying operator behavior. This significantly aids understanding.

  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 it's an 'Advanced (fielded) search' with up to 5 conditions combined via AND/OR/NOT over 24 metadata fields. It lists available fields and provides typical patterns, effectively distinguishing it from siblings like mek_simple_search and mek_fulltext_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 gives typical patterns (e.g., 'Works BY a person', 'Works ABOUT a person', exclusions, language filter) and suggests using mek_browse_index for controlled vocabulary. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool, but the patterns provide clear context for usage.

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

• mek_fulltext_searchA
  4.7/5.0
  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 discloses the return structure (snippets, links) and behavior (full-text search), but does not mention side effects, auth requirements, or rate limits. Still, it is adequate for a read-only search 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?

  Two sentences plus a return-type schema. Every sentence adds value, front-loaded with purpose and usage. No redundancy.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness5/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the tool's complexity (4 parameters, 1 required, output schema present), the description is complete: purpose, when-to-use, return format, and parameter guidance. Sibling tools are mentioned in usage guidelines.

  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 baseline is 3. The description adds extra guidance: 'Use Hungarian words for Hungarian documents' for the query parameter, which adds value 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 'Free-text search in the full text of MEK documents' with a specific verb and resource, and contrasts it with metadata searches, distinguishing it from siblings like mek_simple_search and mek_advanced_search.

  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?

  Explicitly says 'Use this when the query concerns document CONTENT rather than catalogue metadata, or as a fallback when metadata searches find nothing.' This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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

• mek_browse_indexA
  4.8/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations, but description discloses return structure and the distinction between display and search_value. Could mention error behavior if term not found, but overall transparent for a read-only browse.

  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 concise sentences plus return summary; purpose and usage are front-loaded, no redundancy.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness5/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given output schema exists, description covers purpose, parameter guidance, usage context, and how to chain with sibling, making it fully adequate for an agent.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters5/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Adds meaning beyond schema: explains term as a positioning point (not filter), lists most useful fields, and emphasizes using search_value (not display) downstream.

  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 'Browse the controlled-vocabulary index of a catalogue field around a given term', distinguishing it from search tools like mek_advanced_search.

  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?

  Explicitly instructs 'Use this BEFORE subject/type/name searches' and directs to pass search_value to mek_advanced_search, providing clear when-to-use and chaining guidance.

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

• mek_simple_searchA
  4.9/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  No annotations provided, but description fully discloses behavioral traits: AND combination of words, retrying with accent-free and stemmed versions, rounding of limit to supported sizes, and the return format.

  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?

  Concise and well-structured: first sentence states purpose, then details on usage, alternatives, and return format. No unnecessary information.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness5/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given 6 parameters with full schema, an output schema, and no required params, the description covers all necessary context including behavioral details and alternatives, making it 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%, baseline 3, but description adds value by explaining AND logic for title, example for author, Hungarian context for subject, and limit rounding behavior.

  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 it performs a simple search by title, subject, author, and/or MEK ID, and explicitly distinguishes from mek_advanced_search by noting it's for quick, broad lookups.

  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?

  Explicitly states when to use (quick, broad lookups) and when not to (field-precise queries, OR-logic, exclusions, language/type filtering) and names the alternative tool mek_advanced_search.

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