Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• detailA
  4.1/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does clarify that the tool returns specific metadata fields and accepts varying input forms, but it omits any mention of side effects (e.g., read-only nature), error behavior for invalid IDs, or potential access limitations.

  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 concise sentences. The first sentence states the tool's core purpose, and the second packs the input format and the return fields into a compact, readable block. No filler or redundant content.

  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?

  For a simple one-parameter fetch tool, this description is largely complete: it specifies accepted inputs and enumerates the returned record components. However, it lacks explicit statement of not-found/error behavior and does not place itself relative to the sibling search/fulltext tools, making it slightly less than fully complete.

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

  Parameters5/5

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

  The input schema only defines 'id_or_url' as a string with zero description coverage. The description fully compensates by explaining exactly what this parameter accepts: a thesis code, a path like '/id/pl09jx/', or a full URL. This is complete, actionable semantic information.

  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 starts with a specific verb 'Fetch' and names the resource ('the full record of a thesis from theses.cz'). It also enumerates the returned fields, making the tool's purpose unambiguous and sufficiently distinct from the sibling tools 'search' and 'fulltext'.

  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 that the tool should be used when you already know the thesis identifier or URL, and it even shows accepted formats. However, it never explicitly contrasts this tool with 'search' or 'fulltext', nor does it state when not to use it.

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

• searchA
  4.6/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the two return kinds, the meaning of 'url' and 'pdf_url', pagination behavior ('paginated by 10, max 50'), and query operators. This is solid coverage, though it does not mention potential errors, rate limits, or any authentication requirements.

  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 with a front-loaded purpose, a bulleted breakdown of return types, and concise parameter explanations. Every sentence contributes meaningful information without redundancy or fluff.

  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 two-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers the resource, result types, links for further access, pagination limits, and query syntax, making it self-sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly.

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

  Parameters5/5

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

  The schema provides only titles and a default with no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must fully compensate. It does: 'query' is explained as search terms with operator support, and 'limit' is clarified as result count with pagination and max value. This adds clear meaning beyond the raw schema.

  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 identifies the verb 'Search' and the specific resource 'theses.cz (Czech national thesis registry)', and further specifies 'full text and metadata.' It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by defining the two result kinds ('record' and 'fulltext') and how they relate to the 'detail' and 'fulltext' tools.

  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 implicitly provides usage context by explaining that record hits point to detail pages and fulltext hits point to PDF links, referencing the sibling tools 'detail' and 'fulltext.' However, it does not explicitly state 'use this when...' or contrast with alternatives, so it provides clear context but no direct exclusionary guidance.

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

• fulltextA
  4.8/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does an excellent job. It discloses that the tool follows the record to an external repository, lists publicly exposed documents, notes that the theses.cz `access` field does not determine downloadability, and explains how to interpret file fields and empty results. This gives the agent a realistic model of what happens and what to expect.

  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 relatively long but every sentence adds essential context: purpose, repository layout, parameter format, access interpretation, file structure, and edge-case handling. It is front-loaded with the main verb and resource, then elaborates in a logical order. No fluff or 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?

  Given the tool's complexity, lack of annotations, and lack of an output schema, the description is exceptionally complete. It explains the output shape (`label`, `filename`, `url`, optional `confirmed` and `content_type`), behavioral nuances (`access` is not determinative), and how to handle empty results (`note` means gated, not an error). The agent has everything needed to invoke and interpret the tool correctly.

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

  Parameters5/5

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

  There is only one parameter, `id_or_url`, and the schema provides no description for it (0% coverage). The description fully compensates by specifying the accepted formats: 'thesis code ("7lfo74"), /id/7lfo74/ or a full URL.' This is explicit and leaves no ambiguity about what value to pass.

  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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Resolve a thesis to downloadable full-text files in its school's repository.' This clearly differentiates the tool from siblings `search` and `detail` by focusing on file retrieval rather than discovery or metadata. It also explains why this tool is needed (theses.cz stores only metadata) which further cements its unique purpose.

  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 explains the context of use and provides actionable guidance, such as 'always check `files`' and what an empty `files` plus a `note` means. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use this tool, but the purpose is clear enough to infer that it is for fulltext resolution, while siblings handle search and detail. Overall, clear context but no explicit exclusions.

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