Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• furl_searchA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: case-insensitive search, literal substring matching, return fields (hash, preview, created-at, size), ordering by newest first, and workflow to retrieve full original. It does not mention rate limits or auth needs, but for a search tool this is acceptable.

  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 plus a parenthetical note, all front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value: use case, return details, constraints, and follow-up action. 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 no output schema, the description adequately explains return values and ordering. It also provides a complete workflow (search then retrieve). Missing: error handling, empty result behavior, or pagination info, but these are minor for a 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%, so the description adds no new information beyond the schema. It repeats the query parameter's behavior (case-insensitive, literal) but omits mention of the limit parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already does the heavy lifting.

  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 finds stored originals by a case-insensitive substring of their content. It specifies the use case (when lost a hash marker) and distinguishes it from sibling tools like furl_retrieve or furl_list, making the purpose unambiguous.

  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 explicitly states when to use this tool (when you lost a hash marker but remember some text) and advises subsequent use of furl_retrieve. It also notes that it's substring only, not regex, which gives clear usage constraints. It does not explicitly mention when not to use or compare to other search methods, but the context is sufficient.

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

• furl_listA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  The description details the behavior: listing entries, ordering, pagination, and return fields. It does not mention any side effects, but the tool appears read-only. Given no annotations, it is sufficiently 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?

  The description is concise with clear structure: purpose, return fields, pagination, alternatives. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

  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?

  It explains return fields and pagination comprehensively. No output schema exists, so the description compensates well. Minor gap: assumes knowledge of 'CCR entries' and 'session'.

  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 100% with descriptions for limit and offset. The description only mentions pagination generally, adding no new semantics 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 lists stored CCR entries, newest first, and distinguishes it from siblings by mentioning alternatives: furl_retrieve for full original and furl_search for content search.

  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?

  It provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool (listing entries) and when to use alternatives (furl_retrieve, furl_search), covering typical usage scenarios.

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

• furl_statsA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Given no annotations, the description fully discloses that the tool is read-only and describes the two sections, including that the store section reflects all processes.

  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?

  Front-loaded with purpose, each sentence adds value, 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?

  Fairly complete given no parameters or output schema; could optionally mention return format but not necessary.

  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?

  No parameters, schema coverage is 100%, so description does not need to add parameter info. Baseline 4 for 0 params.

  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?

  Clearly states 'Show compression statistics' and details two scopes, distinguishing from sibling tools like furl_compress or furl_list.

  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?

  Explains when to use (to view compression stats) and describes what each scope covers, though does not explicitly state when not to use.

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

• furl_retrieveA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It details three operating modes, states that filters cannot combine with query, and gives illustrative outputs ('returns ranked hash/score/preview matches', 'only the matching lines'). It does not explicitly assert read-only/non-destructive status, but the word 'retrieve' and the context of accessing previously compressed content make that clear.

  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 dense but well-structured: core purpose in the first sentence, then two numbered extra modes, then examples. Every sentence adds functional value or constraints; there is no filler. The length is appropriate for a tool with 12 parameters and three usage modes.

  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?

  Despite complexity and no output schema, the description is complete: it covers full retrieval, search mode, and projection modes, shows expected outputs for each, and mentions key constraints (filter/query exclusivity). It also references the source of the hash ('from furl_compress results or compression markers'), giving enough 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.

  Parameters4/5

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

  Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds high-level parameter usage beyond the schema by explaining combinations (e.g., omitting hash enables search; select_field anchors the row-filter family) and gives concrete examples like 'furl_retrieve(hash, select_field="id", select_equals=42) -> the rows where id==42,' which clarifies parameter interactions.

  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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Retrieve original uncompressed content by hash.' It immediately states the core purpose and distinguishes the tool from siblings like furl_compress, furl_stats, furl_purge, and furl_list by focusing on retrieval. Concrete examples (e.g., 'furl_retrieve(hash) -> the whole original') reinforce the exact behavior.

  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 explicitly says 'Use this when you need full details from previously compressed content,' giving a clear context for use. It also explains two alternative modes (query search, projection) and warns that filters cannot be combined with query, but it does not explicitly name sibling tools like furl_search as alternatives for when not to use this tool.

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

• furl_purgeA
  4.6/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  Discloses permanence ('no undo'), the escape hatch context, offloaded content TTL behavior, and return value. No annotations provided, so description carries full burden and delivers well.

  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?

  Three sentences with no wasted words. First sentence states purpose and context, second explains parameters, third covers return and edge behavior. Front-loaded and efficient.

  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 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: action, parameters, return count, and edge cases. Minor omission: behavior if both parameters provided, but mutual exclusivity is implied.

  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?

  Adds value beyond schema: specifies hash format ('12 or 24 lowercase-hex chars'), mutual exclusivity, and non-error on missing hash. Schema already covers descriptions, so credit for extra detail.

  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 action ('Permanently erase stored originals from the CCR store'), uses specific verbs ('erase', 'purge'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools (e.g., furl_list, furl_retrieve). The 'escape hatch' metaphor further clarifies its role.

  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?

  Explicitly states 'Pass EXACTLY ONE of: hash or all=true' and notes that a missing hash is not an error. Does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like furl_compress, but the parameter constraints are clear.

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

• furl_compressA
  5/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It transparently discloses key behavioral traits: the original is stored and retrievable via furl_retrieve, a no-op returns original unchanged with hash null and stores nothing, persist=true overrides this, mode controls aggressiveness, and include/exclude patterns gate which lines compress. This is far beyond 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 information-dense without fluff. It front-loads the core purpose, then methodically covers usage modes, side effects, and parameters. Every sentence contributes value, and the use of dashes to separate clauses improves readability without losing precision.

  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?

  Given no output schema, the description adequately explains return behavior: compressed text plus a hash for retrieval, and original unchanged with hash null for no-op. It also covers disk file reading, pattern restrictions, and persistence. The tool's complexity is high, but the description leaves no major functional gap for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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

  Parameters5/5

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

  Even though schema coverage is 100%, the description adds significant meaning beyond the schema. It explains the 'exactly one of the two' constraint for content/file_path, clarifies the consequence of persist=true in no-op scenarios, and contextualizes mode and pattern parameters. This transforms raw parameter listings into functional understanding.

  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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Compress content to save context window space.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools (furl_retrieve, furl_search, etc.) by focusing on the compression operation. The scope of when to use it (large tool outputs, file contents, search results) further clarifies its purpose.

  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 states when to use the tool: 'Use this on large tool outputs, file contents, search results, or any content you want to shrink before reasoning over it.' It also explains the alternative path via mcp__furl__furl_retrieve for retrieving compressed content. The mutual exclusivity of 'content' and 'file_path' is clearly spelled out, along with the persists=true option for no-op cases, providing thorough usage guidance.

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