Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• detect_workplace_programsA
  4.8/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  The description adds extensive behavioral context beyond the annotations: it reads two independent paths, caches results for 14 days, requires an APIFY_TOKEN, consumes credits, and clarifies that absence of a signal does not mean the program doesn't exist. This is highly transparent and aligns with the readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint.

  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 detailed yet efficient, with each sentence contributing necessary context: purpose, two data paths, parameter usage, caching, and interpretation of results. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and organized logically.

  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?

  Even without an output schema, the description explains the return shape (one flat row per domain), covers all six parameters implicitly, and discloses operational requirements (APIFY_TOKEN, credits) and limitations. This makes it fully self-contained for correct invocation.

  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?

  Although the schema covers all parameters, the description enriches several: it explains why ats_slug skips discovery, what skipCache does, and how scan_web_pages and scan_job_postings offer complementary signal paths. This adds practical meaning beyond the schema field descriptions.

  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 what the tool does: detects which people programs a company publishes on its own surfaces, returning one flat row per domain. It specifies the exact resources (job postings via ATS, website pages) and distinguishes this from merely reporting on actual programs, making the purpose unambiguous even without 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 description provides clear context on when to use the tool and its sub-paths (e.g., turning off either scan path, using ats_slug to skip discovery). It doesn't explicitly mention alternative tools or when not to use it, but given the absence of siblings, this is sufficient.

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