Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• check_page_existsC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool checks existence, implying a read-only operation, but does not mention permissions, side effects, or error handling.

  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 an efficient single sentence. It is appropriately concise for a simple tool, though it could include a brief usage hint without becoming verbose.

  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, boolean return likely), the description is minimally complete. However, it lacks details on output format or error states, especially with no annotations to supplement.

  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?

  The schema has 100% coverage as the only parameter 'pageName' has a description ('支持中文'). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score is appropriate.

  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 '检查页面是否存在' clearly states the tool's purpose: checking if a page exists. It uses a specific verb and resource, but does not differentiate from siblings like 'get_page' which might also imply existence checking.

  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 like 'get_page' or 'search_wiki'. The description lacks any contextual hints for appropriate usage.

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

• check_healthA
  3.6/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond checking health. It does not mention side effects, rate limits, or response structure, which is minimal for a health check tool.

  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 sentence that directly states the purpose. It is concise, front-loaded, and contains no extraneous information.

  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 is a simple health check with no parameters and an output schema exists, the description is mostly complete. However, it could briefly indicate what the response indicates (e.g., healthy/unhealthy), but the output schema likely covers this.

  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 exist, so the description does not need to add parameter meaning. Baseline score for 0 parameters is 4 according to guidelines.

  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 checks the health status of the Wiki API service, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools which deal with pages, search, and namespaces.

  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 on when to use this tool or alternatives. The description only states what it does, not when it should be invoked or any prerequisites.

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

• list_namespacesA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It describes the return value but does not mention read-only nature, authentication needs, or rate limits. For a simple retrieval tool, this is adequate but not comprehensive.

  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 consists of two concise sentences with no waste. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second provides usage context, making it well-structured and front-loaded.

  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 output schema exists, explanation of return values is unnecessary. The description sufficiently covers purpose and integration with search_wiki. Minor missing details about assumed multi-wiki context, but acceptable for this simple tool.

  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 exist in the schema (0 params), so description need not add param details. Baseline 4 applies as per guidelines.

  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?

  Description clearly states the tool retrieves the namespace mapping table for Minecraft Wiki, returning numeric IDs and names. It distinguishes from sibling tools (e.g., search_wiki, get_page) by its specific function.

  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 advises to use this tool in conjunction with search_wiki's namespaces parameter, providing clear context for when to invoke it. No explicit exclusions, but the guidance is useful.

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

• search_wikiA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explains that multiple keywords narrow results and that the tool is not a general search engine. This helps manage expectations. The existence of an output schema further aids transparency, though more details on pagination or errors could be beneficial.

  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 concise with two short paragraphs. The first sentence immediately states the purpose, and the rest provides actionable tips. No unnecessary words. Could be slightly more structured, but it is 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?

  Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, output schema present), the description covers the core functionality and usage patterns. It addresses keyword selection and batching. Missing details like error handling or rate limits are acceptable for a search tool with an output schema.

  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 coverage is 100% (all params have descriptions), so baseline is 3. The description adds significant value beyond the schema: for 'q', it provides examples ('信标 激活') and clarifies that multiple keywords narrow instead of broaden. This improves usability.

  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: '搜索 Minecraft 中文 Wiki' (search the Chinese Minecraft Wiki). It uses a specific verb and resource, and the sibling tools (check_page_exists, get_page) indicate that this tool is for searching, not for direct page retrieval or existence checks.

  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 usage guidelines: use 1-3 keywords, multiple keywords narrow the range (all must appear), and for multi-angle searches, batch calls instead of piling keywords. While it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare to siblings, the context from sibling names implies it is for search, not other operations.

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

• get_pageA
  4.6/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It explains format selection and cache behavior (via useCache in schema), but does not mention potential errors, permissions, or output structure. Output schema exists, so return format is covered.

  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?

  Description is well-structured: starts with purpose, then format details and alternative tool. Every sentence adds value; no 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?

  Given 4 parameters (1 required) and an output schema, description covers core functionality well. However, does not mention useCache or includeMetadata parameters (though schema covers them) and could briefly note caching behavior. Overall complete for content retrieval.

  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 coverage is 100%, but description adds value by reinforcing format guidance ('非必要不要传此参数') and explaining wikitext vs html. For pageName, it confirms Chinese language support, consistent with 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?

  Description clearly states verb '获取' and resource 'Minecraft 中文 Wiki 页面的内容', specifying exactly what the tool retrieves. It distinguishes from sibling tools like check_page_exists (existence check) and search_wiki (searching).

  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?

  Explicitly guides when to use wikitext vs html format, and advises using search_wiki for template documentation. Provides clear context for tool selection.

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