Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• search_isrctnA
  4.1/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Discloses read-only operation, no authentication required, result limits (up to 10), relevance filtering, and empty response message. With no annotations provided, description carries full burden and does well.

  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?

  4 sentences covering purpose, behavior, complementary role, and usage hints. Front-loaded and no unnecessary words, though could be slightly more concise.

  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?

  Covers purpose, usage, behavior, and limitations. With an output schema present, return values are presumably documented elsewhere. Sufficient for a moderate-complexity 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 has 100% description coverage, so baseline is 3. Description adds minimal extra meaning (e.g., 'filtered for relevance'), but mostly restates schema info like max results limit.

  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 the tool searches the ISRCTN registry for UK and European clinical trials, distinguishing itself from sibling tools like search_clinical_trials by explicitly noting it complements ClinicalTrials.gov coverage.

  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?

  Provides explicit use cases: UK/European trials, academic studies, international coverage beyond ClinicalTrials.gov. Implicitly suggests alternatives by noting it complements other registries, 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.

• search_clinical_trialsA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses read-only, no auth required, public API with no documented rate limit, batch size (up to 10), no pagination, fallback message. Sufficient for safe invocation.

  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?

  Two sentences plus a crisp list of use cases. Front-loaded with core purpose. Slightly redundant use-case list could be integrated, but overall efficient.

  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?

  Output schema exists, so return values are covered. Description covers purpose, usage, behavioral details, and limitations. No gaps given the tool's simplicity and existing structured fields.

  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 clear descriptions for all 4 parameters. Description adds no additional semantic value beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

  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 it searches ClinicalTrials.gov for clinical studies. Lists specific use cases (active trials, recruiting studies, etc.). Distinguishes from sibling tools (search_isrctn, search_pubmed) by focusing on this specific database.

  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 lists what to use it for and mentions constraints (max 10 results, no pagination, no auth). Lacks explicit 'when not to use' but context is clear given siblings.

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

• search_pubmedA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: read-only operation, no authentication, NCBI E-utilities API with rate limit, max 10 results, no pagination, and empty result message. This is thorough and adds significant value beyond structured fields.

  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 concise paragraph, front-loaded with the purpose, followed by behavioral traits and usage context. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or fluff.

  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?

  The description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, behavioral traits, rate limits, result limits, empty result handling, and usage contexts. With an output schema present, return values are not needed. It is complete for a simple tool with two parameters.

  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 baseline is 3. The description does not add additional meaning beyond what is already in the schema for the two parameters (query and max_results). It restates the max_results limit but provides no new semantic 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 it searches PubMed for peer-reviewed biomedical literature, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools (clinical trials, ISRCTN) by listing use cases like research papers and drug mechanisms.

  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 includes a 'Use for' list that implies contexts (research papers, drug mechanisms, clinical outcomes, etc.), but does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternative tools. The sibling context provides implicit guidance, so it is clear but lacks exclusions.

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