Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• list_tagsA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, placing the burden on the description. The description states that the tool lists tags with counts but does not disclose whether it is read-only, potential ordering, or pagination behavior. However, for a simple 0-parameter list, the description is minimally adequate.

  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 sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource. Every word is necessary and there is no superfluous 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 has no parameters, no output schema, and a straightforward purpose, the description is largely complete. It specifies what is returned (tags with usage counts). A minor improvement would be to mention ordering or that the list includes all tags, but overall sufficient.

  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 input schema has no parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter semantics since there are none. The 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?

  The description clearly states the tool's purpose: listing all tags along with their usage counts. It uses a specific verb ('list') and resource ('tags'), differentiating it from sibling tools which deal with bookmarks.

  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 implicitly indicates when to use this tool (when you need a list of all tags and their usage counts). No explicit when-not or alternatives are provided, but the sibling tools have distinctly different purposes, so confusion is unlikely.

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

• list_bookmarks_by_tagsA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions efficiency and generous data but lacks details on ordering, pagination behavior, rate limits, or potential side effects. As a read operation, the safety profile is implicitly clear, but more behavioral context would 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.

  Conciseness5/5

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

  The description is concise, with a clear purpose line followed by a structured Args section. Every sentence adds value, and it is front-loaded with the main action.

  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?

  With no output schema, the description does not describe return format or structure, only vaguely stating 'generous data for analysis.' For a tool with 4 parameters, more detail on output (e.g., list of bookmark objects) would improve completeness.

  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 coverage is 0%, yet the description fully explains each parameter: tags (1-3 tags), from_date/to_date (ISO format, optional), limit (1-200, default 100). This adds essential meaning beyond the schema titles.

  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 'List ALL bookmarks filtered by tags and optional date range,' specifying the verb (list) and resource (bookmarks) with filtering context. This distinguishes it from siblings like list_recent_bookmarks and search_bookmarks.

  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 notes that it gets all bookmarks regardless of age and is efficient for tag-based searches, implying when to use. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or compare to alternatives like search_bookmarks for full-text searches.

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

• search_bookmarks_extendedA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the search scope and parameter ranges but lacks details on ordering, pagination, side effects, or read-only 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 concise with a clear purpose statement, an Args block, and a practical note. 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?

  For a search tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, parameter details, and a usage tip. It lacks output format or error handling, but is fairly complete.

  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 0%, but the description adds meaning by clarifying that 'query' matches against titles, notes, and tags, and specifies valid ranges for 'days_back' and 'limit'. This goes beyond the schema's default and type information.

  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 'Extended search for comprehensive historical results across titles, notes, and tags.' This clearly identifies the tool as a comprehensive search variant, distinguishing it from simpler siblings like 'search_bookmarks'.

  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 guidance to use tag-based searches for efficiency and mentions being mindful of server load. However, it does not explicitly compare with 'search_bookmarks' or state when not to use this tool.

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

• list_recent_bookmarksA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Describes input parameters and default behavior. Without annotations, it adequately indicates a read-only operation listing bookmarks, though no mention of authorization or side effects is needed for this simple list.

  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?

  Concise two-line summary followed by clear parameter descriptions in Args format. No extraneous content.

  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?

  Adequate for a simple list tool with two parameters. Missing output schema description, but the format is standard and expectable. Could mention ordering (e.g., by date).

  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?

  Adds meaning beyond the schema: 'days' is explained as lookback period, 'limit' as max results. Schema has no descriptions, so the description compensates effectively.

  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 action (list), resource (bookmarks), and time constraint (last N days). Distinguishes from sibling tools like list_bookmarks_by_tags and search_bookmarks by its specific scope.

  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?

  Implicitly tells when to use (when needing recent bookmarks). Does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives like search_bookmarks for more complex queries.

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

• search_bookmarksA
  4.8/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations provided. The description discloses behavioral traits: prioritizes recent bookmarks and automatically expands search if needed. This adds value beyond a simple search description.

  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?

  Compact two-sentence description plus a note. First sentence states purpose, then args, then behavioral note. Every sentence is essential, 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?

  With only 2 simple params, no output schema, and no annotations, the description fully covers purpose, input semantics, behavioral nuance (recent focus, expansion), and usage alternatives. No gaps.

  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?

  Input schema has only titles/types with 0% description coverage. The description adds full meaning: query matches against titles, notes, tags; limit is max results (1-100, default 20), fully compensating for the schema's lack of descriptions.

  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 bookmarks by query across titles, notes, and tags, and explicitly differentiates from sibling search_bookmarks_extended via 'recent focus' and 'comprehensive historical search'.

  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 says 'Searches recent bookmarks first' and provides alternative 'For comprehensive historical search, use search_bookmarks_extended', giving clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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