Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• searchB
  3.3/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions semantic search and returns relevance scores, but fails to describe key traits like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, or how results are ordered. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

  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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by clear sections for Args and Returns. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse for an AI agent.

  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 tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, semantic search), no annotations, and an output schema present (which handles return values), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the purpose, parameters, and return type, though it lacks behavioral context like error handling or performance considerations, which holds it back from a perfect score.

  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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful context for both parameters: 'query' is described as 'Search query text' and 'limit' as 'Maximum number of results to return (default: 10),' which clarifies their purposes beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't detail constraints like query length or limit ranges.

  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 clearly states the tool's purpose as 'Search blog posts using semantic search,' which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this semantic search capability from potential sibling tools like 'fetch' or 'list_posts,' which might offer different search methods or scopes.

  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 like 'fetch' or 'list_posts.' It lacks any context about prerequisites, such as whether blog posts need to be indexed or if authentication is required, leaving the agent with no usage differentiation.

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

• fetchB
  3.4/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the MCP HTTP-style contract which provides some context, but doesn't describe important behavioral aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, error handling, authentication requirements, rate limits, or what happens when an invalid ID is provided. The description is minimal and lacks behavioral transparency for a tool with no annotation coverage.

  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 with only two sentences, both of which add value. The first sentence establishes the tool's purpose and context, while the second provides crucial parameter semantics. There is zero wasted text or redundancy.

  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 that there's an output schema (which means return values are documented elsewhere), the description provides adequate basic information about what the tool does and what the parameter accepts. However, for a tool with no annotations and only 0% schema description coverage, the description should ideally provide more behavioral context about how the tool operates, especially since it mentions an 'MCP HTTP-style contract' without explaining what that entails.

  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?

  With 0% schema description coverage for the single parameter 'id', the description provides valuable semantic information by explaining what the 'id' parameter can be: 'a slug, canonical URL, or a post:// style identifier.' This adds meaningful context beyond the basic string type in the schema. However, it doesn't provide examples or format specifications for these identifier types.

  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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Fetch a blog post' specifies the verb (fetch) and resource (blog post). It distinguishes from sibling tools 'list_posts' and 'search' by focusing on retrieving a single post rather than listing or searching. However, it doesn't explicitly mention the sibling differentiation in the description text itself.

  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 context by mentioning the MCP HTTP-style contract and acceptable identifier types, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus the 'list_posts' or 'search' siblings. No guidance is provided about when-not-to-use or alternative scenarios beyond the basic functionality description.

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

• list_postsA
  3.5/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It mentions pagination and max limit (10), which are useful behavioral traits. However, it doesn't cover aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling, leaving gaps 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.

  Conciseness5/5

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

  The description is well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose. The Args and Returns sections are organized efficiently, with no wasted sentences—each part earns its place.

  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 tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is fairly complete. It covers parameters well and mentions return values, though it could benefit from more behavioral context like error cases or performance hints.

  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%, so the description must compensate. It provides clear semantics for all three parameters (sort_by, page, limit), including defaults and constraints (e.g., max 10 for limit), adding significant value beyond the bare 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 clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('blog posts'), and mentions pagination which adds specificity. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'fetch' or 'search', which might have overlapping functionality.

  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 the sibling tools 'fetch' or 'search'. The description implies usage for listing posts with pagination but doesn't specify alternatives or exclusions.

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