Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• search_posthog_docsA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior4/5

  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 'Pure retrieval with no assembly,' which is a key behavioral trait indicating no synthesis. However, it does not mention potential limitations such as result count limits or the meaning of the 'k' parameter, though the output schema likely clarifies return structure.

  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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then adding usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place—there is no fluff or redundancy.

  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 simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description provides sufficient context for selection and invocation. It explains purpose, output, and usage, but falls slightly short by not addressing the 'k' parameter. Overall, it is complete enough for a search tool.

  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?

  The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does not explain the 'query' or 'k' parameters at all. While 'query' is implied by the verb 'search', 'k' (which likely controls the number of results) is entirely unexplained, leaving the agent without sufficient information to use parameters correctly.

  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: 'Search PostHog's JS/Web SDK docs and return ranked snippets.' It specifies the resource (JS/Web SDK docs), the action (search), and the output (ranked snippets). It also distinguishes from sibling tools by noting 'Pure retrieval with no assembly' and explicitly contrasting with 'how_do_i'.

  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?

  The description provides explicit usage guidance: 'use this to discover what documentation exists' and 'For "how do I X" questions, use `how_do_i` instead.' This clearly states when to use this tool versus an alternative.

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

• how_do_iA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns a deduplicated, ordered, cited set of passages within a token budget, and explains its efficiency advantage over a raw top-k dump. It does not discuss side effects, but for a retrieval-style tool this is sufficiently 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 three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then comparative advantage, then usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words.

  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 no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns (assembled context block of cited passages) and when to use it. It could be more explicit about the token_budget parameter, but overall it provides a strong context for an agent to select and invoke the 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'task' parameter (natural language, mention framework), but 'token_budget' is only implied via 'within a token budget' and is never explicitly named or described. This leaves some ambiguity about the parameter's meaning and impact.

  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 states it answers 'how do I X with PostHog?' tasks with an assembled context block. The verb 'Answer' and the specific resource (the task) are clear, and it explicitly distinguishes from search_posthog_docs by recommending this tool over search for implementation questions.

  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?

  It explicitly says 'Prefer this over search for any implementation question', which is a clear alternative. It also tells the agent to pass the task in natural language and mention the framework (e.g., 'in React') so the right variant is selected, providing actionable usage instructions.

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

• get_posthog_docA
  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 burden. It discloses that the return is complete markdown and can be large, which is important behavioral context. It doesn't cover auth or side effects, but for a simple fetch tool this is sufficient.

  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, no wasted words. The purpose is front-loaded, and the guidance is compact yet informative.

  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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers input format, output type, and size warning. It gives the agent everything needed to invoke it correctly.

  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?

  Despite 0% schema coverage, the description adds meaningful meaning with three format examples (path, slug, URL). This helps the agent understand what to pass for path_or_slug.

  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 ('Fetch a full PostHog doc') and the resource ('by path or slug'), with concrete examples. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by the 'prefer how_do_i' note.

  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 to prefer 'how_do_i' unless the whole page is needed, providing clear when-to-use guidance. The examples of valid paths/slugs/URLs further clarify usage.

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