Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• list_person_worksA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  Annotations already mark this read-only and idempotent, and the description adds valuable edge-case behavior: total is always null because IMSLP publishes no count, has_more/cursor control pagination, and an unknown category returns exactly the same empty response as a known empty one. This materially affects how an agent should interpret results.

  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 front-loaded with purpose, then covers important edge cases concisely. A small amount of redundancy with the schema (prefix may be omitted) keeps it from being perfectly compact, but every sentence contributes.

  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 list tool with an output schema, it explains pagination, the null total, the empty-category ambiguity, and the attribution requirement. An agent has enough behavioral context to call it correctly and interpret results without guessing.

  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%, so the schema already documents category, limit, and cursor. The description adds context that category comes from search_people and that cursor relates to has_more, but it largely repeats schema-level detail rather than adding new parameter semantics.

  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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Read the works IMSLP files under a person', and expands scope to composer/editor/arranger/performer credits. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like search_works, get_person, and list_work_files.

  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?

  It states the tool is for listing works credited to a person and explains that the person must be addressed by a category, which 'search_people finds'. It gives clear identification context but does not explicitly name exclusions or alternate tools to use instead.

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

• browse_categoryA
  4.6/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  Beyond the read-only and idempotent annotations, the description discloses non-obvious behaviors: category names are library-controlled, missing categories return results indistinguishable from empty ones, the 'Category:' prefix is optional, cross-category queries are unsupported, 'total' is always null, and 'has_more'/'cursor' govern pagination. It also adds an attribution and linking requirement.

  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 front-loaded and every sentence carries a distinct, useful fact. It is somewhat dense and longer than strictly necessary for a listing tool, but the extra length is mostly justified by the category, empty-result, and pagination quirks.

  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?

  Together with the schema and annotations, the description covers what the tool does, where valid category names come from, how to handle missing categories and combinations, what pagination looks like, and how to credit IMSLP. Nothing needed to invoke the tool correctly is left unexplained.

  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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real value: category values should come from get_work and may omit the prefix, while cursor should be echoed back from a previous response rather than constructed. The limit parameter gains no extra explanation, which keeps this from a 5.

  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 opens with 'Read the works IMSLP files under a category' and enumerates the category kinds (genre, key, instrumentation, period), making the tool’s job unambiguous. It also references get_work and distinguishes browsing a category from searching or fetching a single work.

  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?

  It gives clear guidance to pass category names from get_work rather than inventing them, explains that unknown categories behave like empty ones, and explicitly handles the common multi-category question by advising the agent to browse one category and read the other off each work. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives like search_works, but the usage context is still clear.

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

• get_personA
  4.6/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  Even with readOnlyHint and related annotations covering safety, the description adds valuable behavioral context: date formatting varies by page, missing dates are explicitly reported, the category prefix may be omitted, and the output should credit IMSLP with a link. This goes well beyond what annotations or schema state.

  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 longer than average, but every sentence contributes: result contents, category format, date-format caveat, sibling distinction, and attribution requirement. It is dense but not padded, though it could be slightly tightened without losing value.

  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 output schema exists, the description sufficiently covers how to invoke the tool, what inputs are expected, the variability of life-date formatting, and even user-facing attribution instructions. Nothing critical for correct usage is missing.

  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%, so baseline is 3, but the description enriches the single parameter by explaining the category convention, the optional prefix, and how to obtain the category via search_people. This adds meaningful guidance beyond the schema's own text.

  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 a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('what IMSLP holds about a person'), enumerating the exact facets returned: name, life dates, aliases, registers, and off-site addresses. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling list_person_works, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

  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?

  It explicitly contrasts with list_person_works ('This reads the person; list_person_works reads what they wrote') and directs agents to search_people for finding the category. It does not enumerate every sibling exclusion, but it gives clear context for the main alternatives.

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

• list_work_filesA
  4.6/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  Even though annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior, the description adds valuable behavioral detail: no score files are downloaded or linked, empty section restrictions return available sections, copyright must be reported by jurisdiction, and attribution is required. 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.

  Conciseness4/5

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

  The description is longer than average but every sentence contributes practical guidance for a tool with five parameters and several edge cases. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, then moves through addressing, pagination, sections, copyright, and attribution in a logical order.

  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 tool with this complexity, the description covers all essential calling details: how to identify the work, pagination semantics, section restrictions, empty-result behavior, copyright caveats, and linking requirements. An output schema exists and supplies return structure, so the description does not need to restate return fields.

  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%, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds real semantic value by defining what an edition is, explaining that editions_on_page bounds pagination, clarifying section value wording, and describing the empty-section fallback. It does not merely repeat 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 opens with a specific action and resource: reading the scores and recordings a work on IMSLP holds, edition by edition. It clearly distinguishes this from siblings like search_works, get_work, and list_person_works by focusing on editions and files rather than work metadata or person-level listings.

  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 gives concrete usage context: address the work by title or page id, paginate with limit and offset, and restrict by section using page-printed names. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use this tool, but the context is clear enough for correct invocation.

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

• get_workA
  4.7/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  Even though annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, the description adds substantial behavior beyond them: dates preserve original wording, empty facets return null, edition truncation is disclosed, copyright is jurisdiction-dependent, and no score files are linked. These are exactly the behavioral nuances an agent needs.

  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 long but every sentence earns its place, covering addressing, truncation behavior, copyright caveats, and linking policy. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and then layers necessary edge-case behavior, making it well-suited to a nuanced read operation.

  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 tool's complexity, the availability of an output schema, and the annotation set, the description is complete. It tells the agent how to identify a work, what to expect for truncated editions, how to handle copyright statements, and what to link when presenting results. No critical calling guidance is missing.

  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 repeats the page title format and the 'pass this or pageid, not both' rule already present in the schema, adding no new parameter-level meaning. It does not compensate beyond the schema because none 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 opens with 'Read one work on IMSLP' and enumerates exactly what fields come back, making the verb, resource, and scope explicit. It is clearly distinguished from siblings like search_works and list_work_files, which search or page through files rather than reading a single work.

  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 concrete addressing instructions ('page title' vs 'page id') and explicitly points to list_work_files when a work has many editions and 'editions_truncated' is true. This provides a clear when-to-use-this vs when-to-use-that signal, including an alternative tool.

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

• search_peopleA
  4.7/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description discloses meaningful behaviors: redirects appear as rows and should be followed rather than used for works, 'total' is always null because IMSLP provides no count, and attribution to IMSLP is required when displaying results. This significantly helps the agent interpret results.

  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 front-loaded with the core purpose and each subsequent sentence earns its place by explaining redirects, count behavior, downstream usage, or attribution. It is detailed without becoming wasteful.

  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 purpose, result interpretation, redirect handling, missing total counts, and how to use the result with sibling tools. With annotations indicating read-only behavior and an output schema present, nothing essential is missing for correct selection and invocation.

  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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds useful query semantics: names use the library's own spelling, so searching is more reliable than guessing. It also explains the category format relevant to interpreting the query results, giving the agent a better mental model of what it is matching.

  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 identifies the resource (people/contributors in IMSLP) and the action (search by name), and distinguishes it from search_works by focusing on person-oriented entities. It also clarifies that results are categories like 'Category:Surname, Forename', which is essential for downstream use.

  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 explains why to use this search rather than guessing spellings, and tells the agent that the resulting category is what list_person_works and get_person consume. It does not explicitly contrast with search_works, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select the right tool.

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

• search_worksA
  4.8/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  Annotations already indicate a safe read-only operation, and the description adds valuable behavior beyond that: 'total' is always null, snippets may show filenames or be absent, wikitext can affect results, and attribution to IMSLP is required. No contradictions with 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.

  Conciseness4/5

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

  The description is long but information-dense, front-loading the core purpose and then adding caveats that materially affect result interpretation. Each paragraph earns its place, though it could be trimmed slightly without losing meaning.

  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 search tool with an output schema, the description covers query semantics, title-language pitfalls, pagination fields, snippet behavior, the relationship to sibling tools, and attribution requirements. Nothing essential for correct invocation and interpretation appears to be missing.

  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%, so a baseline of 3 applies, but the description enriches query semantics by explaining that words are matched across the page, not only titles, and that titles are in the composer's original language. It also explains pagination through 'next_offset', adding meaning to the offset parameter beyond the schema's type and default.

  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?

  States a specific verb and resource: 'Search the works of IMSLP by title, by composer, or by words printed on their pages.' It also differentiates from search_people by explaining that searching a person finds works naming them while 'search_people finds the person,' so an agent can distinguish it from its sibling.

  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?

  Gives explicit usage context: searches by title, composer, or page text, and warns that translated titles find nothing, pointing users to the original title. It explicitly names the alternative for person lookups ('search_people finds the person'), telling the agent 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.