Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get_postA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds substantial behavioral nuance beyond that: it details exactly what is returned (tags with kinds and counts, media, dimensions, score, rating, uploader, comment count, source, and date) and clarifies that 'The link is read rather than followed.' This adds real value without contradicting any 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 a single, well-structured paragraph that front-loads the core purpose and then enumerates return fields. It is somewhat dense but every sentence contributes information (usage, identification methods, return contents). No filler or redundancy is present, though it could be trimmed slightly without losing essential detail.

  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 read-only tool with an output schema, the description is nearly complete: it captures usage context, identification methods, and a full list of returned data. It does not address what happens if both parameters are supplied or neither, but given that both are optional and the schema defines them, this is a minor gap. The presence of an output schema further reduces the need to explain return formats.

  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?

  Both parameters are thoroughly described in the schema (100% coverage): id is 'The post's numeric id, as a search returns it' and url includes an example and notes that the link is read rather than followed. The description reiterates these but introduces no new semantic detail. With full schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description does not elevate it further.

  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 one rule34.xxx post'. It further specifies the identification method ('by its id or by a link to its page'), which clearly distinguishes it from its siblings (search_posts and find_tags). The tool's unique role—retrieving full details for a single post—is 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?

  The description explicitly states when to use this tool: 'Use this after a search, whose rows show only the first few tags of each post.' This provides clear context and implicitly differentiates it from searching or tag-finding. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the usage direction is strong enough for an agent to select correctly.

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

• search_postsA
  4.6/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  Beyond the strong annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), the description adds operational specifics: it joins multi-word tags with underscores, explains the site's own classification for media types, details no-result behavior (identifying unknown tags or relaxed match counts), and notes that 'random' sorting yields different sets per call. No contradiction with 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 lengthy but each sentence earns its place: purpose first, then tag formatting, return highlights, classification, and no-result behavior. It is well-structured but could be trimmed slightly without losing value; however, the density of useful information justifies the length.

  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 complexity (8 parameters, output schema present), the description covers all operational aspects: what it returns, how tag combinations work, media filtering, sorting, and edge cases. It does not delve into pagination, but the schema already defines page and limit defaults, and the output schema covers return details. Almost complete.

  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?

  With 75% schema coverage (6 of 8 params described), the description goes further by explaining tag joining (e.g., 'asuka langley sohryu' as one token), media_type classification, and the precise meaning of each sort value ('score' recomputed daily, 'id' newest first, etc.). It substantively compensates for the uncovered 'page' and 'limit' params via the overall context.

  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: 'Search rule34.xxx for posts carrying a tag, or several tags at once.' It clearly distinguishes from get_post by mentioning that tool for retrieving full tag lists. This is unambiguous and directly supports selection.

  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 says 'call get_post for the whole list' when full tags are needed, giving a clear alternative. It also clarifies tag formatting and media_type behavior, but does not mention find_tags, leaving that sibling's role unaddressed. Overall, usage context is solid but not exhaustive.

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

• find_tagsA
  4.7/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavior beyond those: prefix matching ('matches from the start of a name'), the ten-result limit, and that it returns the spelling and post count. No contradiction with 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?

  Three sentences, no fluff. The main purpose is front-loaded, followed by a concrete matching example, then usage guidance. Every sentence serves a distinct role and the description is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

  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 an output schema present (so return values are documented elsewhere) and the single parameter fully described in the schema, the description covers all remaining contextual needs: when to use, how matching works, result limit, and how it relates to searching. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly 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?

  The input schema's 'query' property description already fully covers the parameter semantics: 'The start of a tag name... Spaces are joined with underscores.' The tool description provides an illustrative example ('orange road' finds nothing) but does not add new parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, which has 100% coverage. Baseline 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 states a specific verb ('Find') and precise resource ('how rule34.xxx spells a tag, and how many posts carry it'). It clearly differentiates from sibling tools (search_posts, get_post) by focusing on tag spelling and post count rather than post content or retrieval.

  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 when to use: 'Use this before searching when a name might be spelled differently, and after a search that found nothing because a tag does not exist.' This gives clear context and ties to search_posts, and also notes the 'at most ten names' limitation.

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