Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• search_businessesB
  3.3/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations provided. Description only states basic behavior (returns ranked hits) and lists filters. Lacks disclosure of side effects, read-only nature, rate limits, or pagination.

  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: first states main action and return fields, second lists filters. No filler, front-loaded, efficient.

  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?

  Description covers basic purpose and filters but lacks details on error handling, default ordering, geocoding behavior, and interpretation of 'ranked'. Adequate but with clear gaps.

  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 high (71%), so baseline 3. Description adds no extra semantic value beyond listing filter names already in schema. No explanation of parameter behavior like minRating or free-text categories.

  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 it searches businesses by category and location and returns ranked hits with specific fields. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'search_by_query' tool.

  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 implies usage for category/location searches with optional filters but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor alternatives.

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

• get_business_profileA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations provided; description carries full burden. It describes returns but does not disclose safety (read-only assumed), authentication needs, rate limits, or potential errors. Adequate but not rich.

  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 concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no waste. Every word adds value.

  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?

  No output schema, but description explains return values well. Parameter coverage is complete. Could mention output structure in more detail, but sufficient for typical 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 covers both params with descriptions (id from search_businesses, agentName for UTM). Description adds context about UTM-tagged URL but overall schema is sufficient. Baseline 3.

  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 gets a full structured profile by ID, listing specific return fields (services, hours, etc.). Distinct from sibling tools like search_businesses or get_booking_options.

  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?

  Implied usage when you have a business ID and need a full profile, but no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives or when-not-to-use guidance. Sibling names suggest different purposes but not stated.

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

• search_by_queryA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It states 'natural-language search' implying approximate matching but does not disclose behavioral traits like pagination, result ordering, error handling, or rate limits. The description is not misleading but lacks depth.

  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, front-loaded with purpose and examples. No wasted words, though could include more detail without being verbose.

  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 and no annotations, the description is adequate but incomplete. It explains usage but not return format, error cases, or limitations like result set size. For a tool with 4 parameters, more context on result behavior would be beneficial.

  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 describes 'query' with examples similar to description, and location is briefly mentioned. Description adds examples but does not clarify 'countryCode' or 'maxResults' beyond schema. With schema coverage 50%, description provides moderate added value but does not fully compensate.

  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 tool performs natural-language searches across the catalog, using verbs 'search' and examples like 'evening dentist that takes Sun Life'. This distinguishes it from sibling tool 'search_businesses', which likely supports structured queries.

  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?

  Description provides explicit usage examples for fuzzy queries, implying when to use this tool (natural-language) over alternatives. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention the sibling 'search_businesses' as an alternative for structured queries.

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

• get_booking_optionsA
  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. It discloses the 'UTM-tagged' nature and the privacy aspect of not seeing customer data, but does not reveal additional behaviors such as caching, rate limits, or whether the URL is always returned. Some behavioral traits remain implicit.

  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 with no wasted words. The first sentence front-loads the core functionality, and the second adds a relevant privacy caveat. Every sentence contributes value.

  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 lists the key outputs (booking URL, accepted methods, hours). Since there is no output schema, it would benefit from explicitly stating the response structure. However, for a simple tool with two parameters, it is reasonably 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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining that agentName is for 'UTM attribution,' clarifying its purpose beyond the schema's 'MCP client identifier for UTM attribution.' This extra context justifies a 4.

  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 tool retrieves a UTM-tagged booking URL along with accepted methods and hours for a business. The verb 'Get' is specific, and the resource 'booking options' is distinct from sibling tools like get_business_profile, get_categories, search_businesses, and search_by_query.

  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 needing booking details but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. The privacy note 'we never see customer data' provides some context but no direct guidance on selection.

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

• get_categoriesA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description must cover behavioral traits. It is adequate as a read-only listing tool, but does not mention optional omission of countryCode or any edge cases.

  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, front-loaded with the essential verb and resource, no wasted 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?

  Given the simple single-parameter tool and no output schema, the description sufficiently conveys the tool's purpose and usage context.

  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 countryCode with a clear description. The tool description adds minimal value beyond reinforcing the 'per country' concept.

  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 'List' and the resource 'business verticals per country', and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_businesses or get_booking_options.

  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 phrase 'Use to discover what kinds of businesses agents can search for in a given region' provides clear context for when to use the tool, though it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives.

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