Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• search_gdpr_decisionsA
  3.7/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It states the tool performs semantic search and returns decisions with summaries, fines, etc. However, it does not disclose authentication requirements (api_key param), rate limits, or that it is read-only. The description is adequate but lacks behavioral details beyond the basic function.

  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?

  Three sentences, front-loaded with the primary action. Each sentence adds unique value: semantic search, sources listed, return contents, and usage guidance. Efficient and well-structured, though could be slightly more concise.

  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 complexity of a semantic search tool across multiple jurisdictions, the description covers key aspects: what it searches, what it returns, and a usage hint. No output schema, but return types are summarized. Missing pagination details beyond limit param, but overall sufficiently complete for an AI agent to understand the tool's purpose and basic usage.

  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%, so baseline is 3. Description adds example queries for the 'query' parameter and explains jurisdiction and limit values, but these largely mirror schema descriptions. No significant additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

  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 it performs semantic search on EU GDPR case law, listing sources (DPAs, CJEU, EDPB) and explicitly says 'Use this to find case law supporting legal advice.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_decision_detail (for single decision details) and search_by_gdpr_article (specific article search).

  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?

  Description provides a general use case ('find case law supporting legal advice') but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives like search_by_gdpr_article for article-specific searches. Guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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

• get_decision_detailA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so description must cover behavior. It lists return fields but does not mention read-only nature, authentication requirements (beyond API key), rate limits, or side effects. Minimal disclosure.

  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, each serving a purpose: defining the tool and providing usage context. No redundancy or fluff.

  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 retrieval tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential return fields and usage pattern. Could mention optional API key requirement more explicitly, but overall adequate.

  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 covers both parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). Description adds context that decision_id comes from search results, but otherwise adds no new semantics beyond 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 states it retrieves full details of a GDPR decision by ID, listing specific fields returned (summary, articles, sanctions, etc.). It distinguishes from siblings by recommending use after search_gdpr_decisions.

  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?

  Explicitly says to use after search_gdpr_decisions for more detail, providing clear context. No when-not-to-use or alternative tools mentioned, but the guidance is helpful.

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

• get_gdpr_statisticsA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It indicates read-only aggregate statistics but does not mention idempotency, latency, or authorization requirements beyond the implied API key. The description does not clarify that the api_key parameter is required (the schema shows 0 required parameters, creating ambiguity).

  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?

  The description is a single sentence that lists key statistics, which is efficient and front-loaded. No unnecessary words, but it could be slightly more structured for readability.

  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 no output schema, the description partially compensates by listing example metrics but does not specify the return format (e.g., JSON structure). It also does not explain how the api_key parameter is used. This leaves some ambiguity for an AI agent.

  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 one parameter (api_key) described in the schema. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema's parameter description, 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?

  The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get aggregate GDPR enforcement statistics' and lists specific metrics (total decisions, total fines, average fine, etc.). It distinguishes from siblings like get_decision_detail by focusing on aggregate data.

  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 says 'Useful for contextualizing advice with enforcement trends,' which implies when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or contrast with siblings, though sibling names provide some context.

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

• search_by_gdpr_articleA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that results can be filtered by violation status, country, and limit, but does not describe return format, pagination, rate limits, or authentication requirements beyond the api_key parameter. Basic behavioral traits are covered.

  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 sentences and examples) with no wasted words. Every sentence provides actionable information, and examples are front-loaded for clarity.

  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 no output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's scope (article, violation filter, geography, limit). It lacks details on return structure or error handling, but for a search tool with these parameters, it is largely complete.

  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?

  The input schema already has 100% coverage of parameter descriptions. The description adds marginal value by providing example article formats and clarifying the default for 'violated_only,' but does not significantly enhance meaning beyond the schema's own 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 the tool's purpose: finding GDPR decisions that cite or violate a specific GDPR article. It uses specific verbs ('find,' 'cites or violates') and provides concrete examples of article references, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_decision_detail' or 'search_gdpr_decisions'.

  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 tells when to use the tool ('useful for finding enforcement patterns for specific provisions') and implies its specialized nature compared to broader search tools. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like 'search_gdpr_decisions' for broader queries.

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