Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• search_contentD
  1.5/5.0
  Behavior1/5

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

  With no annotations available, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only says 'search' without explaining return format, filtering behavior, pagination, limitations, or side effects. The nested schema hints at advanced capabilities, but the description offers no behavioral context beyond the name.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness2/5

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

  The description is short, but the single phrase 'Search for content' is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. It does not earn its place because it adds no information beyond the tool name, making it a case of under-specification, not efficiency.

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

  Completeness1/5

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

  Given the tool's nested requestBody schema, enum values, required fields, and lack of output schema or annotations, the description is drastically incomplete. It provides no context about how the tool fits into the broader workspace of sibling tools or what an agent should expect when invoking it.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters1/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining the requestBody fields (searchTerm, spaceIds, mode, filterStructureIds). It provides no such explanation, leaving the agent to infer parameter semantics solely from schema structure, which is insufficient for correct invocation.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose2/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description 'Search for content' essentially restates the tool name without adding specificity about what content is searched, in what scope, or how it differs from sibling tools like get_spaces or get_space_info. It is a tautological expression of the name, not a meaningful clarification of purpose.

  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?

  No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_spaces or get_space_info. The description does not mention intended use cases, prerequisites, or conditions under which search_content is preferred. There is no misleading information, but also no direction.

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

• save_to_daily_noteC
  2.2/5.0
  Behavior1/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the basic action and does not explain whether content is appended or overwritten, what permissions are required, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness3/5

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

  The description is a single concise sentence with no filler, which is structurally efficient. However, it is under-specified, missing essential details about parameters and behavior, so the brevity is not a virtue in this context.

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

  Completeness1/5

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

  Given the tool's moderate complexity (nested requestBody, no output schema, no annotations), the description is far from complete. It does not mention that spaceId and mdText are required, nor describe what the tool returns, making it inadequate for safe invocation.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters1/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The schema has one nested requestBody with fields like spaceId and mdText, but the description does not explain any of them. With 0% schema description coverage, the description completely fails to compensate, leaving parameter meanings ambiguous.

  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 'Save text to today's daily note' clearly identifies the action (save text) and the resource (today's daily note), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like save_weblink (saving URLs) and search_content. However, it lacks elaboration on what 'text' means or the note's context, but the core 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 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 such as save_weblink or search_content. There is no mention of prerequisites, preferred use cases, or exclusions, leaving the agent without direction on selection.

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

• save_weblinkC
  2.7/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'save a weblink to a space', implying a mutation but providing no details about required permissions, side effects, errors, response behavior, or what happens to existing data. This is insufficient for a write 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 a single concise sentence with no wasteful words, and it is front-loaded with the verb. However, it is so brief that it lacks structure or elaboration, making it more under-specified than appropriately structured.

  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 nested requestBody with six properties, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far too minimal. It provides no information about required fields (e.g., spaceId, url), optional enhancements (tags, mdText), or what the response looks like, leaving the agent without enough context to invoke the tool correctly.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters2/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not name any parameters. It vaguely maps 'weblink' to the url field and 'space' to spaceId, but completely ignores tags, mdText, titleOverwrite, descriptionOverwrite, and the nested requestBody structure. An agent would have to guess at the meaning of these fields from the schema alone.

  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 uses a specific verb ('save'), resource ('weblink'), and destination ('space'), which makes the core purpose clear. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like 'get_spaces' and 'save_to_daily_note' due to the explicit target, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or edge cases.

  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?

  There is no guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives like 'save_to_daily_note', no prerequisites, no context about typical scenarios, and no mention of limitations. The description simply states what it does, not when to choose it.

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

• get_space_infoC
  2.8/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Get', implying a read operation, but does not elaborate on whether any side effects exist, required permissions, error behavior, or what 'structures and collections' entail. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation support.

  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 a single, clean sentence that is front-loaded with the key action. It avoids unnecessary words and is easy to parse. While more detail could be added, the conciseness is appropriate for the limited content it provides.

  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 the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description gives a basic idea that the tool returns structures and collections. However, it lacks details on the exact return format, any pagination, error conditions, or what 'structures' and 'collections' mean in this context. It is barely adequate for a minimal understanding.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters2/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The schema has zero description coverage, and the description does not compensate by explaining the spaceid parameter. It only says 'of a space', which weakly hints at the need for a space identifier but does not clarify the parameter format, nesting, or purpose. The parameter name 'spaceid' partially helps, but the description adds minimal value beyond the 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 'Get structures and collections of a space' clearly states a specific verb (Get) and resource (structures and collections of a space), making it evident what the tool does. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_spaces, but the phrase 'of a space' implies it targets a single space's details rather than listing spaces.

  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?

  There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_spaces or search_content. The description does not state any prerequisites, exclusions, or context in which this tool should be preferred, leaving the agent without explicit selection criteria.

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

• get_spacesA
  3.5/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states 'Get your spaces' with no mention of authentication, rate limits, pagination, or return format. The verb 'get' implies read-only, but no additional behavioral context is given, making this a minimal disclosure.

  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 four-word phrase with no wasted language. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for a tool with no parameters, though it lacks any supplemental details.

  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 parameterless list tool, the description provides the essential meaning: retrieving spaces. However, it omits any context about the structure of returned data or how it relates to get_space_info, leaving some ambiguity for a complex domain.

  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?

  This tool has zero parameters, so the input schema fully covers the parameter space. The description adds nothing about parameters, but none are needed, so the baseline of 4 applies.

  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 uses the specific verb 'get' and resource 'spaces', clearly indicating a retrieval operation. However, it does not distinguish from sibling tool 'get_space_info', which likely focuses on a single space's details, so it doesn't earn 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 Guidelines3/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description implies usage for retrieving the user's spaces but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this instead of get_space_info or other siblings. There are no stated alternatives or exclusions, so it stays at an implied level.

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