Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• list-departmentsA
  4.1/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description confirms a read-only list operation but adds no behavioral details 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?

  Single sentence, front-loaded with key action and resource, no unnecessary words. Perfectly concise.

  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 presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It fully conveys the tool's purpose and scope.

  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 explain them. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description is adequate.

  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 specifies the action ('List all departments') and the resource ('Metropolitan Museum of Art'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get-museum-object' and 'search-museum-objects' by focusing on departments rather than objects.

  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 retrieving all departments but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or any conditions/limitations. It is functional but lacks contextual direction.

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

• get-museum-objectA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond 'Get' and 'deeper details,' which is consistent but not enriching.

  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: one for the action and one for usage guidance. Front-loaded and efficient with no wasted words.

  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 object retrieval tool, the description suffices given the presence of an output schema, annotations, and sibling tools. No missing critical context.

  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 100% with descriptions for both parameters (objectId and returnImage). The description does not add parameter-specific context, so a baseline score of 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?

  Description clearly states 'Get a museum object by its ID' and specifies source (Metropolitan Museum of Art). It distinguishes from siblings that list, search, or open explorer.

  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 'Use this when the user asks for deeper details on a specific object ID,' providing clear when-to-use guidance and implying when not to use (e.g., for listing or searching).

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

• search-museum-objectsA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, idempotent behavior. The description adds value by detailing the exact output (total objects found + paginated object IDs) and clarifying default behaviors (e.g., hasImages defaults to false). 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?

  Six sentences, front-loaded with purpose and return format, logically organized. No fluff; every sentence earns its place.

  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 (14 params, 1 required, output schema exists), the description is complete. It covers main output, alternative usage, parameter details, and cross-tool dependency. The existing output schema complements it.

  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 covers 100% parameters with descriptions and defaults. The description summarizes and adds a cross-reference (departmentId from list-departments), but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose4/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the purpose: 'Search for objects in the Metropolitan Museum of Art (Met Museum).' It also mentions return type (total count and paginated object IDs). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get-museum-object, though the name and context imply it.

  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 explicit guidance on when to avoid this tool ('If the Met Explorer app is open... prefer using those results). It also references the list-departments tool for a parameter. However, it does not compare with other search alternatives or mention get-museum-object.

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

• open-met-explorerA
  4.9/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  Adds value beyond annotations by describing post-opening behavior ('keep your chat handoff short and UI-focused'). Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint; description does not contradict them.

  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?

  Four sentences, each purposeful: defines the tool, instructs on query parameter, advises post-opening behavior, and mentions alternative tool. No wasted words, front-loaded.

  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 interactive nature, output schema existence, and annotations, description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, usage, alternative, and post-behavior. No gaps.

  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?

  Schema coverage is 100%, so description adds context like recommending 'q' for live search and default behavior of hasImages. Baseline is 3, and the description provides helpful but not critical additional insight.

  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 clearly states verb 'Open', resource 'interactive Met Explorer app', and purpose 'browsing and filtering objects'. Distinguishes from sibling get-museum-object by specifying alternative use case.

  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 advises to pass 'q' for exploration intents, instructs to keep chat handoff short and UI-focused after opening, and directs users to get-museum-object for deeper details on a specific object ID.

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