Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• fab_search_assetsC
  2.6/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds that free assets are the default, which is a specific behavioral trait. No contradiction with annotations.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness2/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is extremely concise (two sentences), but given the tool's complexity (19 parameters, 0% schema coverage), it is under-specified. Conciseness should not come at the expense of clarity; more detail on parameters and usage is needed.

  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?

  With 19 parameters and no schema descriptions, the description fails to provide adequate context for the tool's capabilities. It does not mention pagination, filtering logic, or key use cases, despite an output schema being present. The description is too minimal for a search tool of this complexity.

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

  Parameters1/5

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

  Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning no parameter descriptions exist. The tool description does not explain any of the 19 parameters (e.g., cursor, tags, channels). It only hints at priceMode via the 'free assets' default, which is insufficient for effective parameter use.

  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 searches public Fab marketplace listings and notes that free assets are returned by default, which distinguishes it from siblings like fab_get_asset (single asset) and fab_list_limited_time_free. However, it does not explicitly contrast with all siblings, so it slightly misses the top 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?

  No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like fab_list_limited_time_free or fab_download_free_asset. The description implies default behavior (free assets) but does not explain context or exclusion criteria.

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

• fab_list_filtersC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Annotations already indicate idempotent, read-only, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that a warning identifies 'versioned fallback or stale values,' providing some extra insight, but does not explain what that means or detail the output.

  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 very concise at two sentences, front-loading the main action. However, it could be slightly improved by adding parameter context without losing conciseness.

  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?

  With an output schema present, return values are covered externally. However, the complete lack of parameter descriptions and usage context makes it incomplete for an agent to use effectively.

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

  Parameters1/5

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

  Schema coverage is 0%, meaning the description provides no information about the two parameters ('kinds' and 'refresh'). Without any parameter description, the tool is hard to use 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 lists 'usable public Fab filter labels and slugs' and mentions a warning for stale values. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that deal with assets or downloads, though it could explicitly link to filter usage in search.

  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. It does not mention prerequisites or context such as being a precursor to fab_search_assets.

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

• fab_get_assetA
  3.7/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. Description adds that details are 'normalized' and 'public', and includes prices. Adequate but does not go beyond basic safety profile.

  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?

  Single sentence with no fluff. Front-loads the action and result. Every word adds value.

  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?

  With output schema available, return values are covered. Description mentions key outputs (details, prices). Minor gap: no mention that it only fetches one listing, but sibling context clarifies.

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

  Parameters2/5

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

  Schema coverage is 0%, so description should clarify parameters. It does not explain 'listingIdOrUrl' or 'currency' beyond their names. Lacks detail on format, defaults, or 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?

  Description clearly states verb 'Get', resource 'Fab listing', and specifics 'normalized public details and per-license prices'. Distinguishes from siblings like fab_search_assets which searches multiple listings.

  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?

  No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. Usage is implied for a single listing retrieval, but no exclusions or alternatives mentioned.

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

• fab_list_limited_time_freeA
  3.7/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds context about the curated nature of the promotions, which is valuable beyond the annotations.

  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 a single sentence that conveys the core purpose without waste, but could be more informative about parameters.

  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 with an output schema, the description covers the purpose but misses parameter guidance, which is needed for proper invocation.

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

  Parameters1/5

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

  The schema has 0% description coverage for the 'limit' parameter, and the description provides no additional meaning or usage guidance for it.

  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 lists 'Fab's dedicated curated limited-time-free promotions' and distinguishes it from 'general free search,' specifying the exact verb and resource.

  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 using this tool for limited-time-free promotions and not for general free search, but does not explicitly name alternatives or provide 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.

• fab_download_free_assetA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  The description adds context beyond annotations: it clarifies the download goes to a 'configured local download directory' and that the operation does not involve purchasing. Annotations indicate idempotentHint true and destructiveHint false, which align with the description.

  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 one sentence, front-loaded with the core action. It is concise but could be more structured by parameter groupings. No wasted words.

  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 3 parameters, annotations, and an output schema, the description explains the download action and clarifies no purchase. However, it omits details about the output schema structure, error conditions, or format variations. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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

  Parameters2/5

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

  Schema description coverage is only 33% (only acceptFabEula is described). The description mentions 'free Fab file' but does not explain the meaning of format (enum), listingIdOrUrl (which must be a free listing), or the required Eula acceptance. The description fails to compensate for the low 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 clearly states the tool downloads a 'free Fab file' and specifies it never purchases or adds to a library. It distinguishes from siblings like 'fab_search_assets' and 'fab_get_asset' by focusing on download of free files.

  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 this tool is only for free assets by stating 'free' and 'never purchases'. However, it does not explicitly list when not to use it or suggest alternatives like a purchase tool. Context is clear 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.