Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get_sitemap_statsC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Get comprehensive statistics' implies a read-only operation, it doesn't specify what 'comprehensive statistics' includes, whether it requires authentication, rate limits, error conditions, or how it interacts with the sitemap (e.g., fetching vs. analyzing). This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

  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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

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

  Completeness2/5

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

  Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that presumably returns statistical data. It doesn't explain what 'comprehensive statistics' entails (e.g., counts, sizes, formats), how results are structured, or any behavioral traits. This leaves the agent with insufficient context to use the tool effectively.

  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 has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting the single 'url' parameter. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

  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 action ('Get comprehensive statistics') and resource ('about a website's sitemap structure'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from its siblings (get_sitemap_pages, get_sitemap_tree, parse_sitemap_content), which all relate to sitemaps but likely serve different purposes.

  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?

  The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings or alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, constraints, or scenarios where this tool is preferred over others, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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

• get_sitemap_treeC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

  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 mentions 'fetch and parse,' implying network interaction and data processing, but lacks details on error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or what the parsed tree structure looks like. For a tool that interacts with external websites, this omission is significant and leaves key behavioral aspects unclear.

  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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action ('fetch and parse') and resource ('sitemap tree'), making it easy to grasp quickly. Every part of the sentence contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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

  Completeness2/5

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

  Given the tool's complexity (involving network fetching and parsing), lack of annotations, and absence of an output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address what the parsed tree output entails, potential errors (e.g., invalid URLs or sitemap formats), or performance considerations. For a tool that likely returns structured data, more context is needed to guide effective use.

  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%, with clear documentation for both parameters ('url' and 'include_pages'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining how 'include_pages' affects the parsed tree or providing examples of valid URL formats. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

  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 action ('fetch and parse') and resource ('sitemap tree from a website URL'), making the tool's purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_sitemap_pages' or 'parse_sitemap_content', which likely handle similar sitemap-related tasks, leaving some ambiguity about when to choose this specific tool.

  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?

  The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions fetching and parsing a sitemap tree, but doesn't specify scenarios where this is preferred over siblings like 'get_sitemap_pages' (which might retrieve individual pages) or 'parse_sitemap_content' (which might handle raw sitemap data). Without such context, users must infer usage from tool names alone.

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

• parse_sitemap_contentC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

  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 states the tool parses sitemap content but doesn't mention error handling, output format, performance implications, or any side effects. For a tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, this is inadequate, as it leaves key behavioral traits unspecified.

  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, efficient sentence: 'Parse a sitemap directly from its XML or text content.' It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, with no wasted words. This makes it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

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

  Completeness2/5

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

  Given the tool's complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on what the parsed output looks like, how errors are handled, or any behavioral context. Without annotations or an output schema, the description should provide more context to be fully helpful, but it falls short.

  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 description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents both parameters ('content' and 'include_pages') thoroughly. The description adds no additional semantic details beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or constraints. Thus, it meets the baseline of 3, as the schema handles the heavy lifting.

  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's purpose: 'Parse a sitemap directly from its XML or text content.' It specifies the verb ('parse') and resource ('sitemap'), and mentions the input format ('XML or text content'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_sitemap_pages' or 'get_sitemap_tree,' which might have overlapping functionality, so it doesn't reach a 5.

  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?

  The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_sitemap_pages' or 'get_sitemap_stats,' nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. This lack of context leaves the agent without clear usage instructions, scoring a 2 for minimal guidance.

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

• get_sitemap_pagesB
  3.3/5.0
  Behavior3/5

  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 mentions 'cursor-based pagination' which is valuable behavioral information, but doesn't address other important aspects like rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or what happens when no sitemap exists. The description adds some context but leaves significant gaps.

  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 efficient - just two sentences that convey the core functionality and key behavioral characteristic (pagination). Every word earns its place with zero redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

  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 tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides basic functionality but lacks important context. It doesn't explain what the output looks like, how pagination works in practice, or what happens with edge cases. The description is complete enough to understand what the tool does at a high level, but insufficient for confident usage without additional trial-and-error.

  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 fully documents all 6 parameters. The description mentions 'optional limits and filtering options' which aligns with parameters like 'limit' and 'route', but adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what's in the schema. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

  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 action ('Get all pages') and resource ('from a website's sitemap'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_sitemap_stats' or 'get_sitemap_tree', which likely provide different types of sitemap information.

  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?

  The description mentions optional limits and filtering, but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_sitemap_stats' or 'parse_sitemap_content'. There's no indication of prerequisites, typical use cases, or scenarios where other tools might be more appropriate.

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