Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• epl_gesuchseingaengeA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, which the description complements with 'abrufen' (retrieve) and 'Transparenzliste'. No destructive behavior is implied, and the description adds context about the official BAG list. With annotations covering safety, the description adds moderate value.

  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 extremely concise: two short sentences plus a structured use_case block. The main purpose is front-loaded, and every sentence adds value without 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 zero parameters and presence of an output schema, the description fully covers the tool's purpose and use case. It explains what information is returned (medications applied for SL) and references the official source. No gaps remain.

  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 tool has no parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. Per guidelines, baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters but adds value by describing what data is retrieved (current applications for SL).

  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 retrieves current applications for the specialty list (SL) and specifies the action 'abrufen' and resource 'Gesuchseingaenge'. The use case further clarifies it answers which medications are being considered for SL inclusion, making it highly specific and distinct from siblings.

  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 use case block explicitly states the question the tool answers ('Welche Medikamente sind aktuell zur Aufnahme in die SL beantragt?') and characterizes it as transparency/monitoring. However, it does not provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance or compare with sibling tools like epl_sl_suche.

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

• epl_rechtskontextA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, consistent with the description that the tool provides information only. The description adds behavioral context (Fedlex references, structured information) beyond the annotations, with no contradictions.

  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 very concise, with a clear structure including a <use_case> tag. Every sentence adds value, no 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?

  Given the tool's limited complexity (one required parameter) and the presence of an output schema (not shown), the description adequately covers the tool's function and intended use cases.

  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?

  Although context signals indicate 0% schema description coverage, the actual input schema includes descriptions for both parameters ('frage' and 'format'). The tool description does not add additional parameter meaning beyond what is already in the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

  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: providing legal context for the mandatory health insurance obligation ('Kassenpflicht'). It specifies the verb 'liefern' and the resource, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by mentioning it supplements search tools with legal context.

  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 includes a <use_case> block that tells when to use the tool (for legal basis questions about 'Kassenpflicht' and WZW criteria) and that it complements search tools. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools.

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

• epl_sl_sucheA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds behavioral context by noting that it returns a direct link and legal basis currently due to the BAG-API not being public, implying fallback behavior. No contradictions 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.

  Conciseness5/5

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

  Description is concise with 5 sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and no unnecessary text. The use_case section is well-structured and adds value without 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 complexity (search with pagination and format), the description covers the purpose, use cases, and current behavior. Output schema exists for return values. Minor gap: does not explain how to interpret multiple results or the precision of the search, but overall sufficient.

  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?

  Input schema has high description coverage (100%) with each parameter described (suchbegriff, limit, format). The tool description does not add further parameter details, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

  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 verb 'Suche' (search) and the specific resource 'Spezialitaetenliste' (SL) for medications covered by insurance. It further specifies the use case of determining if a medication is covered, and distinguishes from siblings by referencing epl_ggsl_abfrage and epl_migel_suche.

  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 states when to use this tool: to answer 'Ist Medikament X kassenpflichtig?'. It also provides alternatives for birth defects (epl_ggsl_abfrage) and aids (epl_migel_suche), giving clear guidance on 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.

• epl_migel_sucheA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so description's search nature aligns. Description adds that it returns legal basis and official MiGeL source, providing context beyond the annotation. No contradiction.

  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?

  Concise: two sentences plus a use_case block. No unnecessary words. Front-loaded with purpose.

  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 single required parameter, output schema present, and read-only annotation, the description is complete. It explains purpose, use case, and alternative 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 already describes parameters (suchbegriff, limit, format) with descriptions. Description adds example search terms (e.g., 'Rollstuhl', 'Hoergeraet'), which is helpful but not essential. Baseline 3 due to 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?

  Description states 'Suche in der Mittel- und Gegenstaendeliste (MiGeL) nach Medizinprodukten'—specific verb and resource. It differentiates from sibling 'epl_sl_suche' by noting the MiGeL is for medical devices vs medications.

  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?

  Use case explicitly states: addresses whether OKP covers a medical device, provides legal basis, and directs to 'epl_sl_suche' for medications. Clear when to use and alternative.

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

• epl_ggsl_abfrageA
  4.9/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, and the description does not contradict this. Moreover, it adds valuable behavioral context by stating that the tool provides legal basis and official BAG source information, which is beyond what annotations provide.

  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 concise, with no extraneous words. It front-loads the main action and includes a clear use case section that adds value without 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 has a simple input (one required parameter plus optional format) and an output schema (not shown but indicated), the description covers the purpose, usage, and behavioral context thoroughly. It provides sufficient information for an agent to select and invoke the tool 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?

  The input schema already provides descriptions for both parameters (geburtsgebrechen_nr and format), so schema coverage is high. The description adds an example use case (e.g., '313' for Diabetes) which helps parameter understanding, justifying a score above baseline.

  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 checks GGSL coverage for birth defects, specifying the exact use case: to answer which medications the IV covers for a given birth defect number. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool epl_sl_suche by noting the difference between IV and OKP benefits.

  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 explicitly provides when to use the tool: to determine IV coverage for birth defects. It includes a contrasting sibling tool (epl_sl_suche) for OKP coverage, giving clear guidance on alternatives.

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

• epl_server_infoA
  4.9/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  The description adds value beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=true) by specifying that the tool returns information about current functionality, planned extensions, MCP version, and phase. This contextual detail is useful for an agent.

  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 extremely concise, with a clear front-loaded purpose sentence, a brief detail sentence, and a structured use case. Every sentence serves a purpose with no 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 zero parameters and the existence of an output schema, the description sufficiently explains the tool's output: current functionality, planned extensions, MCP version, and phase. It is complete for an info tool.

  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?

  There are no parameters, so the description does not need to add parameter semantics. Baseline score of 4 is appropriate as the description does not contradict or miss any parameter-related details.

  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 displays server status and API phase information, with a specific use case about answering questions regarding server capabilities and roadmap. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (all epl_* but different purposes) with no ambiguity.

  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 <use_case> explicitly defines when to use this tool: to discover available tools and the roadmap status. It provides clear context without needing to mention alternatives, as the tool is unique in its purpose.

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