Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• search_by_severityC
  2.7/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations provided; description only states it filters by severity. Missing details on pagination, authentication, or any side effects. A read-only filter tool should disclose at least the output nature.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness3/5

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

  Single sentence is concise but lacks structure. Could separate purpose from parameter details or add a note about usage. Not verbose, but too minimal.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness3/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given output schema exists and context signals show simple parameters, the description is functional but incomplete. Does not mention return format or that it lists CVEs meeting the severity filter.

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

  Parameters2/5

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

  Schema coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It mentions severity values but does not explain the 'limit' parameter (default 20). Only one parameter is addressed minimally.

  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?

  Description clearly states verb 'Filter' and resource 'CVEs by severity', listing possible values. However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like get_recent_cves or search_cve_by_keyword.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. Does not explain that it is for filtering specific severities while other tools handle recency, ID lookup, or keyword search.

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

• search_cve_by_keywordB
  3/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It mentions the days_back constraint (max 120) but omits details on pagination, result ordering, or whether the tool is read-only.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness4/5

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

  Two sentences with no redundant words, though lacking structural elements like bullet points. Could be slightly more organized.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness3/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Provides core purpose and one optional parameter, but the output schema covers return structure. Missing description of 'limit' and any handling of null days_back. Adequate but with gaps.

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

  Parameters2/5

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

  Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It adds meaning for 'keyword' (product name or any keyword) and 'days_back' (optional with max 120), but does not describe the 'limit' parameter at all.

  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 tool searches CVEs by keyword or product name, and optionally filters by recency. It distinguishes from siblings like get_recent_cves and search_by_severity, though not from search_cve_by_id.

  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 when a keyword is available, but does not provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives like using search_cve_by_id for specific IDs.

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

• search_cve_by_idA
  3.6/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations provided, and the description does not disclose behavior beyond the search action. It lacks details on missing IDs, rate limits, or authorization 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 a single sentence with no wasted words, efficiently conveying the core functionality.

  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 lookup tool with an output schema, the description is largely complete. It could strengthen sibling differentiation, but the core task is well-covered.

  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 0% for the parameter, but the description provides an example format (CVE-2024-1234), adding partial meaning. However, it does not specify exact format or constraints.

  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 searches for a CVE by ID, with an example. It distinguishes from siblings that search by other criteria.

  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 when a CVE ID is known, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus sibling tools like search_cve_by_keyword.

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

• get_recent_cvesA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Without annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the NVD API limit of 120 days, which is a key constraint, but does not describe other behaviors like pagination, rate limits, or that it returns a list of CVEs. Output schema exists but is not referenced.

  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, no redundant words, directly communicates the tool's core function and a key constraint. Every part is necessary.

  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 tool with two parameters and an existing output schema, the description is mostly complete. It mentions the critical API limit and the time-based nature. However, it lacks guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings, slightly reducing completeness.

  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 0%, so description must compensate. It adds meaning for `days_back` by specifying 'last `days_back` days', but does not explain `limit` parameter (default 20) beyond what the schema provides. This partial clarification is insufficient for full compensation.

  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 the verb 'Fetch' and resource 'recent CVEs', specifies the time window via `days_back` parameter, and differentiates from siblings like search_by_severity or search_cve_by_id by focusing on recency.

  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 implicitly conveys when to use (fetching recent CVEs by days back) but does not explicitly state when not to use or compare to sibling tools like search_by_severity or search_cve_by_keyword, leaving room for confusion.

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