Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get_pasteA
  3.5/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states 'Retrieve' (read-only) and mentions returning content and metadata, but it does not mention error behavior, authentication needs, or side effects. This is minimal disclosure for a tool with no annotation safety net.

  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 concise sentence (10 words) that is front-loaded with the verb and resource. There is zero waste.

  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 simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no output schema), the description is adequate but incomplete. It lacks guidance on when to use versus siblings, and does not mention error handling or specific return format details beyond 'full content and metadata'.

  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 covers 100% of the single parameter (pasteId) with a description. The tool description adds 'by ID' but does not enrich the parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 applies given full schema coverage.

  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 uses the specific verb 'Retrieve' and clearly identifies the resource as 'full content and metadata for a specific paste by ID'. This distinguishes it from siblings like search_pastes and get_recent_pastes by emphasizing the direct ID lookup.

  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 already have a paste ID, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_pastes or get_recent_pastes. There is no mention of exclusions or alternative tools.

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

• get_recent_pastesA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds that both 'created or modified' pastes are returned, which is useful context. However, it does not mention that this is a read-only operation, whether results are ordered, pagination behavior, or any rate limits. For a simple read tool, this is minimal but not deficient.

  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, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It wastes no words and avoids redundancy with the schema. Every phrase adds value, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

  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 low-complexity list tool with optional filters and no output schema, the description adequately conveys what to expect. It covers the main purpose and filter options. However, it omits details like ordering (e.g., newest first) or what 'recent' means (e.g., time window), which could be helpful but are not critical given the tool's simplicity.

  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 covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of 'optionally filtered by project or type' mirrors the schema's optional flags but adds no new semantic detail. The meaning of 'limit' is already well explained in the schema. No additional depth is provided.

  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: 'Get recently created or modified pastes'. It specifies the verb ('Get'), the resource ('pastes'), and the distinguishing scoping ('recently created or modified'). This differentiates it from sibling tools like search_pastes and get_paste, which serve different purposes.

  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 indirectly implies usage when the user needs recent pastes, possibly filtered by project or type. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., search_pastes for arbitrary search criteria, get_paste for a single paste). The absence of exclusions or alternative references leaves usage guidance implied rather than explicit.

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

• search_pastesA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It states that the tool searches and returns matching pastes with metadata, which is a read-only operation. However, it does not disclose details like result ordering, matching semantics, or any access requirements, 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 a single, compact sentence that front-loads the main purpose. It avoids unnecessary detail and earns its place.

  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?

  Without an output schema, the description should ideally clarify what 'metadata' includes and how results are ordered or paginated. It only states that matching pastes with metadata are returned, leaving the response structure under-specified. This is adequate but not complete for a search tool.

  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 schema already documents all parameters. The description adds marginal value by mentioning that search matches content, title, and tags, but it also introduces 'topics' which is not a distinct parameter in the schema, creating slight ambiguity. This is baseline with no significant added insight.

  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 uses a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('Markdrop pastes'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like get_paste (retrieval of a single paste) and get_recent_pastes (listing recent items). It also specifies the search dimensions (content, title, tags, topics).

  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 clearly implies usage for finding pastes by search terms, which differentiates it from sibling tools. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use alternatives or provide exclusions, so it falls short of a 5.

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

• list_tagsA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It implies a read-only operation by saying 'List', and it mentions the output content (counts and categories). However, it does not state potential limitations like the effect of the minCount filter or whether the list is ordered, leaving some behavioral 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 extremely concise—two short sentences that front-load the core purpose. Every word adds value, with no redundant or filler 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 list tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains what will be returned (tags with counts and categories). The tool's low complexity and clear purpose make this sufficient. Minor omissions like ordering or pagination are not critical here, so a score of 4 is appropriate.

  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?

  Since the input schema provides full descriptions for both parameters (100% coverage), the baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional meaning about the parameters beyond what the schema already specifies, so no extra credit is warranted.

  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 action ('List'), the resource ('all available tags'), and the included details ('counts and categories'). It is unambiguous and easily distinguishes the tool from sibling tools that operate on pastes rather than tags.

  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 a clear use case ('Useful for discovering what topics are documented'), indicating when this tool is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or situations where it should not be used, so it lacks exclusionary guidance.

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