Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• scrapeD
  1/5.0
  Behavior1/5

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

  Tool has no description.

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

  Conciseness1/5

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

  Tool has no description.

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

  Completeness1/5

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

  Tool has no description.

  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?

  Tool has no description.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose1/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  Tool has no description.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines1/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  Tool has no description.

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

• searchC
  2.6/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions retrieving 'up-to-date information' and a limit on results, which adds some context. However, it doesn't cover critical aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or what 'up-to-date' means (e.g., real-time vs. cached). For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

  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 well-structured and appropriately sized, with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter and return sections. It uses bullet points for readability, and each sentence adds value without unnecessary fluff. However, the parameter mismatch slightly reduces efficiency, but overall it's concise and 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?

  Given no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage (0%), the description is incomplete. It provides basic purpose and some behavioral hints but lacks details on parameters (due to mismatch), error cases, or output structure. For a web search tool with potential complexity, this leaves the agent under-informed about how to use it 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?

  The description lists two parameters (prompt and limit), but the input schema only has one parameter (query). This creates a contradiction, as 'prompt' in the description doesn't match 'query' in the schema. With 0% schema description coverage and mismatched parameters, the description fails to add meaningful semantics beyond the schema and actually misleads about the tool's inputs.

  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's purpose: 'Performs web searches and retrieves up-to-date information from the internet.' This specifies the verb ('performs web searches') and resource ('information from the internet'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like crawl, extract, or scrape, which likely have overlapping internet-related functions.

  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?

  The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like crawl, extract, or scrape, nor does it specify scenarios where search is preferred over them. The usage context is implied (web searches for up-to-date information) but lacks explicit when/when-not instructions or comparisons.

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

• extractB
  3.1/5.0
  Behavior2/5

  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 mentions that the tool extracts information and includes parameters for web search and source references, but doesn't describe what happens during extraction (e.g., rate limits, authentication needs, error conditions, or what 'extracted information' looks like). For a tool with 4 parameters and no annotations, this is insufficient behavioral context.

  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 well-structured with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter explanations and return value description. It's appropriately sized for a 4-parameter tool, though the 'Returns' section could be more specific. Every sentence adds value, and there's no unnecessary repetition or fluff.

  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 tool's complexity (4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks details about behavioral traits, error handling, and what the extracted information actually contains. Without an output schema, the return value description is vague ('Extracted information from the web page based on the prompt').

  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 description provides clear semantic explanations for all 4 parameters beyond what the input schema offers (which has 0% description coverage). It explains that 'url' is for the web page, 'prompt' specifies what to extract, 'enableWebSearch' allows supplemental searches, and 'showSources' includes references. This adds significant value over the bare schema, though it doesn't detail parameter interactions or constraints.

  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's purpose: extracting specific information from a web page based on a prompt. It specifies the verb ('extracts') and resource ('web page'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'crawl', 'scrape', or 'search' beyond the extraction focus. The description is specific about the action but lacks sibling tool comparison.

  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?

  The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'crawl', 'scrape', or 'search'. It doesn't mention prerequisites, use cases, or exclusions. The only implied usage is for extracting information from web pages, but with no context about when this is preferable to other tools on the server.

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

• crawlB
  3.2/5.0
  Behavior2/5

  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 states the tool crawls and extracts content, implying it performs read operations, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, potential impacts on target sites, or error handling. For a web crawling tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

  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 efficiently structured: a concise opening sentence states the purpose, followed by a bulleted list for args and returns. Every sentence earns its place by delivering essential information without redundancy, making it easy to parse and front-loaded with key details.

  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 tool's complexity (web crawling with 3 parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks details on behavioral traits, error cases, or output format specifics beyond 'markdown and HTML format'. This is adequate for a minimal viable description but has clear gaps.

  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 description adds substantial meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains each parameter's purpose: 'url' as the starting point, 'maxDepth' for crawl depth, and 'limit' for page count. This compensates well for the schema's lack of descriptions, providing clear semantics for all three parameters.

  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's purpose: 'Crawls a website starting from the specified URL and extracts content from multiple pages.' It specifies the verb ('crawls'), resource ('website'), and scope ('extracts content from multiple pages'), making the action clear. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'extract' or 'scrape', which likely have overlapping functions.

  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?

  The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'extract' or 'scrape'. It mentions the tool's function but offers no context about prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative use cases. This leaves the agent without clear direction for tool selection among siblings.

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