Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• rebuildA
  3.7/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions calling fst-indexer, but does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., index unavailability, rebuilding time, reversibility). It lacks important context for a mutating operation.

  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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the main action. It avoids fluff and conveys the purpose and process efficiently.

  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 has no parameters and an output schema exists, the description covers the 'what' and 'why'. However, it omits operational context such as when a rebuild should be performed, potential downtime, or prerequisites like the availability of fst-indexer. For a rebuild operation, this is a notable gap.

  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 tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing to document. The baseline of 4 applies, and the description adds context about the index rebuild without being able to explain any inputs.

  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 explicitly states the action (Rebuild the FST index), the target resource (web-archive domain), and the outcome (archived content is searchable). It is clearly distinct from sibling tools like web_search, archive_list, or archive_read.

  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 the tool is used to rebuild the full-text index when archived content needs to be searchable via unified-history-mcp. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it vs alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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

• archive_listA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits, but it only documents parameters. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, how results are ordered, or any side effects, leaving significant behavioral context 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 concise and well-structured: a one-line purpose followed by a clear parameter list. Every sentence earns its place, with no fluff.

  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 list tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose and parameters adequately. It misses minor behavioral details like result ordering or read-only assurance, but is reasonably complete given the tool's complexity.

  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 0%, but the description fully compensates by explaining the meaning, format (YYYY-MM-DD), inclusivity of date_to, and the default for max_results. This adds substantive value beyond the raw 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 it lists archived web fetch/search entries with metadata, using a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like web_fetch, web_search, archive_read, and rebuild.

  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?

  Usage context is implied by the name and purpose (listing archived entries), but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or references to alternative tools. This leaves the agent to infer appropriate scenarios.

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

• archive_readA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that entries are returned newest first and the default of 50, but does not mention error handling, permissions, or output format. The existence of an output schema mitigates some of this, but the description alone is minimal.

  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 concise: a one-sentence purpose followed by a clean Args block. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

  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 tool has an output schema, so return values are covered. The description covers purpose and parameters adequately. It could benefit from a note on how to obtain a valid file_id (e.g., via archive_list), but the simplicity of the tool and presence of an output schema make it mostly complete.

  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?

  The schema has no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), so the description provides clear meaning for both parameters. It includes a concrete example for file_id and explains max_entries with ordering semantics and default value, adding significant value 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 'Read entries from an archive file' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like archive_list by focusing on reading entries rather than listing archives.

  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 archive_list. The description simply states the action without exclusions or context about prerequisites or alternative scenarios.

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

• web_fetchA
  4.6/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well by disclosing key behaviors: HTML-to-markdown conversion, persistence to web-archive, IP blocking, and token support. It lacks some edge-case disclosures (e.g., redirects, error handling), but covers the main side effects.

  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 well-structured and appropriately sized. It opens with a concise summary, then details the process and constraints, followed by a clean parameter list. Every sentence adds value without unnecessary verbosity.

  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 the tool's simplicity, the presence of an output schema, and thorough parameter coverage, the description is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke correctly. Missing return-value details are covered by the output schema.

  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?

  Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description compensates fully with an Args section explaining each parameter: url (http/https only), timeout (default 30, max 120), and token (optional Bearer token). This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare 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's verb ('Fetch'), resource ('a URL'), and outcome ('archive the result'). It also details the conversion to markdown and persistence as a JSONL entry, distinguishing it from siblings like web_search and archive_read.

  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 provides clear context on when to use the tool (fetching URLs with http/https) and includes constraints (private/internal IPs blocked). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions relative to sibling tools.

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

• web_searchA
  4.6/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility. It discloses key side-effects: persisting results and archiving them for later search. This goes beyond a simple read operation and informs the agent of data retention, which is important context.

  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 and well-structured: it opens with a clear one-line purpose, adds two sentences of behavior, then an Args section. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

  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 the tool's simplicity (one parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, behavior, parameter constraints, and the archiving side-effect that ties it to sibling tools. It is complete for an agent to select and invoke 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?

  The description explicitly documents the only parameter, 'query', and adds a max length constraint (500 chars) that is not present in the schema. With schema description coverage at 0%, this fully compensates and gives the agent clear guidance on what to provide.

  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 purpose: 'Search the web and archive the results.' It specifies the verb (search), resource (web), and adds details about archiving and DuckDuckGo, which distinguishes it from siblings like web_fetch (which likely fetches specific URLs).

  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 gives clear context for use ('Search the web') and mentions that results are archived for later search, implying a workflow with archive_read. It does not explicitly contrast with web_fetch or list when not to use, but the context is sufficient for a basic understanding.

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