Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• search_frappe_docsA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It adds useful behavioral context by explaining the return shape (page titles and paths) and the integration with get_frappe_doc. However, it doesn't explicitly state read-only behavior, describe failure modes, or address edge cases like empty results, so it's adequately but not richly transparent.

  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 tight sentences, each serving a purpose: first states the core action, second explains the output and usage priority. No redundant content, perfectly front-loaded.

  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 two-parameter search tool with sibling tool and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it does, what it returns, and how it fits into the workflow. It lacks only minor details like explicit read-only confirmation or error handling, which are arguably not necessary for a well-scoped search tool.

  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% (both `query` and `limit` are well-described), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter-level semantics beyond the schema, but it does contextually relate the output to the `query` parameter. That doesn't push it above baseline.

  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 'Find Frappe framework documentation pages by keyword', specifying the verb and resource. It also differentiates itself from the sibling get_frappe_doc by noting it returns paths to pass to that tool, establishing its role as the search entry point.

  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?

  Explicitly instructs 'Use this first when you do not already know the exact path of the page you want,' giving a clear when-to-use directive and implying the alternative (get_frappe_doc) when the path is known.

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

• get_frappe_docA
  4.7/5.0
  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. It discloses that the tool fetches a page, returns readable content as markdown, and explains the URL structure. It does not specify error handling or side effects, but for a simple retrieval tool the key behavioral expectations 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 two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the main purpose and output format, then gives essential path details and a pointer to the sibling tool. Every sentence adds value.

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

  Completeness5/5

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

  For a one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it states the return format (markdown), defines the path structure, provides examples, and names the sibling tool for discovery. No critical information is missing for correct invocation.

  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 already documents the single parameter well (100% coverage). The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema by explaining the URL prefix, language segment requirement, and giving examples, which helps the agent construct valid paths.

  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 uses a specific verb 'Fetch' and clearly identifies the resource: pages from the Frappe framework user documentation at a defined URL prefix. It differentiates from the sibling search_frappe_docs by stating that this tool fetches a direct page rather than discovering paths.

  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?

  The description explicitly instructs to use search_frappe_docs for discovering paths, establishing a clear when-to-use vs alternative scenario. It also clarifies that paths must be relative to the prefix and start with a language segment, providing concrete usage guidance.

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