Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get_subtitleA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  Annotations already mark this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, but the description adds meaningful behavioral detail: missing fields are null rather than blank, field absence rates vary, and invalid ids are surfaced as an absence. This materially improves the agent's ability to interpret results without contradicting 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 four sentences, but each one earns its place: purpose, record contents, null-behavior caveat, and download routing. It is front-loaded with the primary action and uses no filler or repetition.

  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 one-parameter read tool with an output schema and strong annotations, this description is complete. It covers what the record contains, how to interpret missing fields, and how to proceed when a download is needed, leaving no critical gap for correct invocation or result handling.

  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%, and the id parameter is already well documented, including the invalid-id behavior. The tool description reinforces that the id comes from list_subtitles but does not add significant semantic value beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 states a specific action ('Read one subtitle's record') and a specific resource (tvsubtitles.net), and anchors the input to an id from list_subtitles. It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling tools, which search or list subtitles rather than read a single record.

  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 clearly indicates when to use this tool: after list_subtitles has returned an id. It also gives a practical boundary by saying the server reads the catalogue and that opening 'page_url' is how to download the file. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the usage context is unambiguous.

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

• list_subtitlesA
  4.8/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  The annotations already mark the tool read-only and idempotent; the description adds useful behavioral detail beyond that: the kind field reports coverage versus subtitles, the season default behavior, and the fact that each record carries the page to open to download it. It also notes in the schema that unknown ids return a page.

  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 dense but every sentence earns its place: purpose, id source, mode semantics, default behavior, and result interpretation are all covered without fluff. The main behavioral details are front-loaded.

  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 an output schema exists and all parameters are documented, the description covers the necessary call-shaping details: how to switch modes, default season behavior, and what the records contain. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke this correctly.

  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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description goes further by explaining the relationship between season and episode, how the output changes depending on their combination, and what omitting season does. This adds real meaning beyond the individual parameter 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?

  The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List what tvsubtitles.net holds for one series.' It then distinguishes its two modes, season coverage versus episode subtitles, and clearly separates it from siblings like get_subtitle and search_titles by explaining the object being listed.

  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 explicit usage context: pass id from search_titles, use season alone for coverage, add episode for subtitle records, and omit season to get the newest season. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives like get_subtitle, but the mode-based guidance is clear and actionable.

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

• search_titlesA
  4.8/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  The description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond the annotations: 'movie' is refused rather than answered with an empty list, 'with_counts' triggers an extra large request and counts figures for the whole show, cells can remain null, and site coverage is television-only. It also discloses consequences such as the additional request cost. No contradiction with readOnly/openWorld/idempotent 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 dense but every sentence adds distinct information: coverage limitation, media_type behavior, row contents, with_counts cost/counting semantics, and ID provenance. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and never repeats the title or schema.

  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 entry-point tool, the description covers what it returns, how parameters change behavior, cost implications, and how the returned IDs connect to other tools. An output schema also exists, so not listing return fields is acceptable; nothing an agent needs before invoking it is missing.

  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 100%, but the description still adds meaning: it explains the 'with_counts' request-cost and whole-show counting semantics, explains why 'movie' is refused despite the enum allowing it, and states that query matches on the name alone. This goes well beyond the field 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?

  The description opens with a clear verb and resource: 'Search tvsubtitles.net for a television series by name.' It goes beyond the title by describing what each returned row contains and notes it returns the IDs that sibling tools consume, so an agent can distinguish this search tool from the get/list siblings.

  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 context for when to call it: this is the source of show IDs for other tools ('Show ids come from here and are never built by hand'), and it states a firm exclusion — films are refused, so the tool should not be used for movie searches. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or say 'use list_subtitles instead,' so it stops short of a 5.

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

• list_languagesA
  4.9/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  Annotations already say readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds meaningful behavioral detail: results are measured over one season and counted in episodes, and six site codes differ from ISO 639-1 with one collision ('br' for Brazilian Portuguese vs. Breton). This is exactly the kind of domain quirk an agent needs before filtering subtitles.

  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 dense but every sentence carries distinct information: core purpose, default behavior, show-level behavior, output fields, and a critical code-collision warning. It is front-loaded with the main verb and resource, and the warning is placed where it matters before the next tool step.

  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 annotations, full schema coverage, and an output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: both invocation modes, parameter meaning, the data returned per entry, and a domain caveat. It also connects the tool to the surrounding workflow by telling the agent to read this before narrowing list_subtitles.

  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 input schema already describes both parameters well, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra context beyond the schema: the no-argument call returns exactly twenty-four languages, and the show-level result is 'measured over one season and counted in episodes,' which clarifies how id and season behave in practice.

  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 first sentence states exactly what the tool does: 'List the languages tvsubtitles.net catalogues subtitles in.' It names the resource (languages) and the site, and the following sentences distinguish the two modes (whole catalogue vs. a specific show), setting it apart from siblings like list_subtitles and search_titles.

  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: call without arguments for the catalogue-wide list, or pass a show id from search_titles to see what one show holds. It also tells the agent when to use this tool relative to a sibling: 'Read this before narrowing list_subtitles by language.'

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