Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• gsc_search_analyticsB
  3.4/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries full transparency responsibility. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, what permissions are required, how pagination works, or what the response structure looks like. It only mentions output metrics and dimensions, adding minimal behavioral 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 very short and efficient, with three sentences covering the main action, the return values, and the dimensions. Each sentence adds essential information without redundancy or filler, and the main verb is front-loaded.

  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 10 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description is only a few sentences. It omits guidance on required parameters, pagination behavior, filtering capabilities, and response structure. The schema covers parameter semantics, but the description fails to provide the broader context needed for effective tool 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?

  Schema description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are individually documented. The description restates the dimension list but adds no extra meaning about parameter usage, formats, defaults, or interactions beyond what the schema already provides.

  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 queries Google Search Console search analytics and lists the returned metrics (clicks, impressions, CTR, position) and available dimensions. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like gsc_list_sites and gsc_inspect_url, which handle site lists and URL inspection rather than analytics data.

  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 use for search analytics queries but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or provide exclusions. It does not reference any sibling tools or offer guidance on when this tool is preferred, so usage context is only implied.

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

• gsc_inspect_urlA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, but the description discloses the key outputs: indexing status, crawl issues, and mobile usability. It does not mention any side effects or prerequisites, though this is a read-only inspection.

  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, front-loaded with the action, and every clause provides useful information without 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?

  For a simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is complete enough: it states what the tool does and what information it returns.

  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 coverage is 100%, with both parameters having clear descriptions. The tool description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, so 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 uses a specific verb 'Inspect' and names the resource 'a URL's indexing status in Google Search Console', clearly distinguishing it from siblings like listing sites, search analytics, and sitemaps.

  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 the tool is for checking individual URL indexing, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or any exclusions. Clear enough for basic use, but no direct guidance.

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

• gsc_list_sitemapsA
  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 behavioral disclosure. It does state the return values (paths, types, dates, errors/warnings), which is useful, but it does not mention prerequisites such as site verification/auth, potential rate limits, or failure modes. This is a typical read operation, but the lack of such context leaves a gap.

  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 efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and return content. Every word adds value, and there is no redundancy or 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?

  Given the tool's low complexity (one required parameter, no output schema) and the description's mention of return fields, the description is fairly complete. However, it could have noted that the site_url must be a verified property in GSC, which is a relevant prerequisite for usage. This slight omission prevents a perfect score.

  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 has 100% coverage for the single parameter site_url, which is described as 'Site URL as registered in GSC'. The tool description does not add significant extra meaning beyond that, except for implying the sitemaps are submitted for that site. Since the schema already documents the parameter, a 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 the tool's purpose: listing all sitemaps submitted for a site in Google Search Console, and specifies the return content (paths, types, dates, errors/warnings). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like gsc_list_sites, which list sites, and gsc_search_analytics, which handles search analytics.

  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 that the tool is for listing sitemaps of a specific site, but it does not explicitly mention when to use it over alternatives or indicate any exclusions. Given the specificity of the tool name and description, usage is implied; however, no direct guidance on choosing this vs sibling tools is provided.

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

• gsc_list_sitesA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool lists sites accessible to the authenticated account, indicating a read-only, authenticated operation. It does not detail return format or pagination, but for a simple list tool the behavior is adequately 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 single sentence is concise, front-loaded, and contains no filler. Every word adds value, making it an exemplary minimal description.

  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 simplicity—no parameters, no nested objects, no output schema—the description fully covers its function. Contextual completeness is high for the scope of the tool.

  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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly avoids parameter details, as there are none to document.

  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 (sites/properties), and the scope (all accessible to the authenticated account). It distinguishes from siblings like gsc_search_analytics and gsc_list_sitemaps by specifying a distinct resource and operation.

  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 its use for enumerating sites but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives. The sibling tools have distinct purposes, so usage is implied rather than guided.

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