Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• list_available_docsA
  4.7/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint already declared, the description adds useful context about the return format (list of dicts with 'name' and 'description') and the empty-list behavior. It does not contradict annotations and provides extra value beyond the structured hints.

  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 compact and well-organized into three clear sections: the action, usage directive, and return value. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or filler, and key information appears upfront.

  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?

  For a zero-parameter, read-only tool with an output schema, the description fully explains what the tool does, how to use it in the broader workflow, and what the expected output looks like. It covers all necessary context within its simple scope.

  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 takes zero parameters, and the schema confirms this with an empty properties object. The baseline for no-parameter tools is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on output semantics rather than parameter details, so no additional parameter information is needed.

  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 states a specific action ('List all configured documentation projects') and clearly differentiates from sibling tools by explicitly naming get_project_docs and instructing to call this first. The verb and resource are specific, making the tool's purpose unmistakable.

  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 provides when-to-use guidance ('Always call this first') and describes the exact workflow for passing the result to get_project_docs. This is a clear directive that leaves no ambiguity about the tool's role relative to alternatives.

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

• get_project_docsA
  4.9/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  Even with readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations, the description adds valuable behavioral detail: it discloses the automatic fallback mechanism, the two possible return modes (complete documentation vs. URL index), and the dependency on a prior list_available_docs call. This goes well beyond the annotations.

  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 clear opening sentence, followed by two short paragraphs explaining fallback and prerequisite. Every sentence contributes meaningful information without 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?

  The tool is simple (one parameter) and the description explains both the primary behavior and the fallback path, including what to do with the fallback output. It covers the full call flow and the relationship to sibling tools, and the presence of an output schema further reduces the need to elaborate on return values.

  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 single parameter is well-documented in the schema ('Exact project name as returned by list_available_docs'), and the description reinforces this by stating to call list_available_docs first. Since schema coverage is 100%, the description adds modest but useful reinforcement.

  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 fetches documentation for a project, with the specific verbs 'Fetch' and 'tries'. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by explaining the llms-full.txt vs llms.txt fallback and referencing read_doc_page and list_available_docs.

  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 instructs to call list_available_docs first to get valid project names. Also describes when the fallback to llms.txt applies and directs the user to read_doc_page for individual pages, making the when-to-use and alternatives explicit.

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

• read_doc_pageA
  4.9/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  Beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations, the description adds key behavioral context: it fetches Markdown content, requires URLs from an llms.txt index, and enforces a security restriction on allowed hosts. This gives the agent a fuller picture of expected inputs and constraints without contradicting annotations.

  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 compact and front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence adds value: the first defines what it does, the second gives sourcing guidance, and the third provides a critical security constraint. No wasted words.

  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 simple single-parameter schema, complete schema coverage, and presence of an output schema, the description fully covers all essential context: when to call, what it fetches, and host restrictions. The tool is uncomplicated, and the description is complete for an agent to invoke it correctly.

  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 already describes the 'url' parameter as an HTTPS URL from an llms.txt index, so the description does not need to repeat it. However, it adds provenance guidance by explicitly telling the agent to use URLs obtained from get_project_docs, which is valuable semantic context 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 fetches Markdown content for a specific documentation page, using an explicit verb and resource. It differentiates from siblings by referencing get_project_docs and specifying the page-level granularity, distinguishing this from listing or retrieving entire doc sets.

  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 gives explicit usage guidance: use URLs from get_project_docs when it returns an llms.txt index, do not call if complete documentation was already returned, and only permitted host URLs. This clearly indicates when to use the tool and when not to, fulfilling the dimension.

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