Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get-mediawiki-syntaxA
  4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, which the description does not contradict. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations by specifying that it 'dynamically fetches' from external sources, ensuring 'complete and up-to-date' information, which helps the agent understand real-time data retrieval and reliability aspects.

  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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by specifics in a second sentence. Every sentence adds essential information (e.g., dynamic fetching, scope of features) without redundancy, making it highly efficient and well-structured.

  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 moderate complexity (external data fetching), rich annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint), and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It covers purpose, behavior, and scope adequately, though it could slightly enhance completeness by mentioning potential limitations like network dependencies or response formats.

  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 has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting the 'format' parameter with its enum values and default. The description does not add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage without extra semantic value.

  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 with specific verbs ('Retrieve comprehensive MediaWiki syntax documentation') and resources ('from official MediaWiki help pages'), and it enumerates the scope of content covered ('formatting, links, tables, images, templates, categories, magic words, and citations'). With no sibling tools, this level of detail is excellent.

  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 for obtaining up-to-date MediaWiki syntax, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other documentation sources) or any prerequisites. Since there are no sibling tools, the lack of comparative guidance is less critical, but no explicit when/when-not instructions are given.

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