Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• searchB
  3.4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states that a list of relevant search results is returned, which is useful, but omits details about read-only status, rate limits, authentication, or any potential side effects.

  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 short and front-loaded with the core action, but the third sentence about following the OpenAI MCP specification is vague and does not add actionable information. Still, it is efficiently sized.

  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?

  For a simple single-parameter tool, the description covers purpose and output type, but it lacks usage context relative to sibling tools and does not describe the structure of a search result. Given no annotations or output schema, it is adequate but not comprehensive.

  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% for the single 'query' parameter, and the description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

  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 for information using Perplexity and returns a list of relevant results. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'query' beyond the Perplexity mention, so it lacks explicit differentiation.

  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 use when one needs to search for information via Perplexity, but does not provide any explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools 'query' or 'fetch', nor any exclusions.

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

• fetchA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool returns 'full contents' rather than partial data and mentions adherence to the OpenAI MCP specification, which offers some context. However, it does not address error behavior, permissions, or response structure beyond that.

  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 concise with two short sentences. The first sentence states the core function efficiently, and the second adds a useful conformance reference. No filler is present, though the second sentence could be considered slightly vague.

  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?

  For a simple single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides adequate information about what it does and the input. It mentions fetching 'full contents', which hints at the return value, but does not describe the exact response structure or potential errors. Given the low complexity, this is acceptable but not thorough.

  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 schema already provides 100% coverage for the 'id' parameter with a clear description. The tool description adds the contextual detail that the ID belongs to a search result document, but this is a minor semantic addition; the schema already sufficiently defines the parameter.

  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 fetches the full contents of a document by ID, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings 'search' and 'query' by focusing on retrieving a single known document rather than searching or filtering.

  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 implies usage after obtaining an ID from a search result, giving clear context for when to use this tool. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the 'by its ID' phrasing makes the appropriate scenario apparent.

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

• queryA
  4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that multi-turn conversations are supported via sessionId and that the response includes rich metadata (citations, sources, images, related questions). It does not mention side effects or require explicit safety notes, but the query nature implies a read operation.

  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 (3 sentences), front-loaded with the primary action, and each sentence adds value: purpose, specialization, multi-turn feature, and return metadata. There is no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

  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?

  The description is largely complete for a query tool: it explains what it does, what makes it special, and what it returns. It does not cover edge cases, error handling, or rate limits, and there is no output schema, but the rich metadata mention helps. Overall, it provides sufficient context for an AI agent to use it correctly.

  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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema; it only mentions sessionId for multi-turn in general terms, which is already covered. Thus, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

  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 queries Perplexity AI with a prompt and specifies that it is specialized for web search with citations and related questions. While it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like search or fetch, the purpose is unambiguous.

  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 this tool: for web searches with citations, sources, and related questions, and for multi-turn conversations. However, it does not mention when not to use it or explicitly compare to alternatives like search or fetch.

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