Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• upload_thermomix_recipeA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool uploads to Cookidoo, handles image upload to Cloudinary, requires credentials and subscription, and returns recipe_id and guided_buttons. This provides good behavioral insight beyond the input schema.

  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 front-loaded with the main purpose and then provides necessary details. It is concise for the complexity, with each sentence adding value (structure of recipe, mode guidelines, image handling, requirements). No redundancies.

  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 two parameters, an output schema (exists), and sibling tools, the description covers what the tool does, how to use the parameters, prerequisites (env vars, subscription), and response fields. It lacks explicit differentiation from siblings but is otherwise complete.

  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 0%, so the description must add meaning. It does so by explaining the 'recipe' parameter as structured JSON (name, ingredients, steps with optional mode, etc.) and 'image_url' as a photo from fetch_recipe. This adds significant context beyond the generic object and string 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 tool uploads a recipe to Cookidoo 'Meine Kreationen' and enables Guided Cooking on TM7. The verb 'Lädt... hoch' is specific, and the resource is identified. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'save_thermomix_recipe', which could be similar.

  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 provides usage context: requires COOKIDOO_EMAIL/COOKIDOO_PASSWORD in .env and an active subscription. It implies when to use (uploading structured recipes), but does not give explicit when-not or alternatives (e.g., vs save_thermomix_recipe).

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

• fetch_recipeA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns raw data and mentions supported sources, but it does not discuss auth, rate limits, or error behavior. It adequately suggests a non-destructive 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.

  Conciseness4/5

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

  The description is moderately concise, with a clear structure separating supported sources from post-fetch instructions. Every sentence adds value, though the extra guidance for the calling model could be considered slightly beyond the tool's core description.

  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 tool's complexity (multiple source types) and the existence of an output schema, the description is fairly complete. It covers input, output, and follow-up actions, though it omits error specifics.

  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?

  With schema description coverage at 0%, the description adds meaning by implying that the 'url' parameter should point to a supported recipe source. However, it lacks details like format examples or validation rules.

  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 verb ('liest ein Rezept') and resource ('aus einer beliebigen Quelle') and specifies supported sources, distinguishing it from sibling tools like find_recipe_image and save_thermomix_recipe.

  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 explains when to use this tool (to fetch raw recipe data from a URL) and provides a clear next-step pipeline (convert to Thermomix recipe, save). It lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, but the context is clear.

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

• save_thermomix_recipeA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It mentions the output format and target folder but lacks details on overwrite behavior, error handling, or prerequisites. The basic file-saving operation is described, but depth is limited.

  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, using two sentences to convey the core purpose and parameter details. It front-loads the main action. However, it could be slightly more structured or include a brief note on behavior.

  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 tool's low complexity (2 parameters) and presence of an output schema, the description covers essential aspects: purpose, parameters (meaning), and target folder. It lacks alternative tool guidance but is otherwise adequate for a simple save operation.

  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?

  With 0% schema description coverage, the description effectively compensates by explaining what `markdown` contains (full card with YAML frontmatter) and that `filename` is optional, derived from the heading. It adds meaningful context beyond bare parameter names.

  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 tool's action: saving a finished recipe card as a Markdown file. It distinguishes from siblings (fetch, find, upload) by focusing on local file saving.

  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 explains how to use the parameters but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like upload_thermomix_recipe. Usage context is implied but not elaborated.

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

• find_recipe_imageA
  4.6/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  The description discloses that it requires a PEXELS_API_KEY in the .env file, which is important for the agent to know. However, it does not specify rate limits, error behavior, or details about the external API call. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; the key disclosure adds value.

  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 three sentences, efficiently front-loading the purpose and then providing usage guidance and parameter advice. No unnecessary words.

  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 one parameter and an existing output schema, the description covers purpose, usage guidelines, parameter semantics, and an environment requirement. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to use correctly.

  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?

  The input schema has a single string parameter 'query' with no description (0% coverage). The description compensates by advising a 'short, concrete search term' with an example, adding meaning beyond the 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 the tool's purpose: searching for a matching dish photo as a fallback when the recipe has no own image. It distinguishes itself from siblings like fetch_recipe by positioning this as a fallback.

  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?

  Explicit guidance is given: first prefer the image_url from fetch_recipe, and only use this tool as fallback. Also provides an example of a concrete search term.

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