Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• transita_country_overviewA
  3.6/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It lists returned data but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, any rate limits, authentication requirements, or side effects. This leaves the agent uncertain about safety and constraints.

  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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's purpose and outputs. Every element earns its place with no redundant or vague wording.

  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?

  Despite lacking an output schema, the description lists the major return dimensions (visa pathways, EU status, score dimensions, drawbacks, cities with rents, PR/citizenship timelines). This provides sufficient context for an overview tool, though structural details (e.g., JSON format) are omitted.

  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% and the single parameter (country_code) is well-documented in the schema, including a reference to the countries resource for available codes. The description adds no additional semantic value beyond what the schema provides, so 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get summary data for a destination country' and enumerates specific data points (visa pathways, EU status, score dimensions, drawbacks, top cities with rent ranges, PR/citizenship timelines). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on visas, matching, or search.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines3/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description implies usage when a country overview is needed, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., transita_visa_details for specific visa info). No when-not-to-use or prerequisite context is given.

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

• transita_match_visasA
  3.7/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It clearly states output (matches, ranking, timeline, cost, links) and the EU citizen special handling, but does not describe whether the tool is read-only, has side effects, or requires authentication. For a matching tool, partial transparency.

  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?

  Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the action ('Score a user's profile'). Every sentence adds value: first describes core function and output, second adds EU citizen detail. No wasted words.

  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's complexity (10 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the main purpose and output format. However, it could be more complete by explaining required parameters, error cases, or how optional params influence matching.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters2/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema has 10 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description only generically mentions 'user's profile' without explaining how each parameter (e.g., goal, timeline, education) is used or what enum values mean. It fails to add meaning beyond property names.

  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: scoring a user's profile against all visa pathways, returning top matches with ranking, timeline, cost, and links. This differentiates it from siblings like transita_visa_details (specific visa details) and transita_compare_visas (comparing specific visas).

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines3/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description implies use for initial visa matching based on a user profile, and mentions EU citizen handling, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives (e.g., 'Use this for a broad match; use transita_visa_details for a specific visa'). No when-not-to-use or prerequisite info.

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

• transita_compare_visasA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  The description discloses the return values comprehensively (processing time, cost, validity, PR-pathway, delta summary). With no annotations provided, the description fully covers behavioral expectations. It does not mention potential errors or data freshness, but for a comparison tool this is sufficient.

  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 consists of two short, front-loaded sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second lists the return fields. Every word contributes meaning without redundancy.

  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's low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema), the description is adequately complete. It explains both the action and the expected result. It could optionally mention that it requires 2-3 items, but that is already enforced by the schema.

  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% as the only parameter 'visa_ids' already has a clear description. The tool description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so 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 clearly states the verb 'Compare' and the resource 'visa pathways side-by-side'. It lists specific output fields (processing time, cost, validity, PR-pathway, delta summary), making the tool's purpose distinct from siblings which provide single visa details or matching.

  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 implies that the tool should be used when comparing 2-3 visa pathways and mentions how to obtain visa ids via transita_match_visas or the transita://visas resource. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternative tools for non-comparison scenarios.

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

• transita_search_by_nationalityA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Describes that it returns 4-6 destinations with best-fit visa, key stats, and FAQ, and falls back gracefully if a slug isn't curated. This provides useful behavioral context beyond the schema, especially since no annotations are provided.

  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?

  Description is three sentences, each adding value: purpose, ideal use case, and output specifics. No superfluous words, front-loaded with key 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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the output format (4-6 destinations, best-fit visa, stats, FAQ) and error handling (graceful fallback). It could mention it is a read-only operation, but that is implied.

  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 of the single parameter is 100%, so the description does not need to add much. The description does not provide additional meaning beyond the schema's explanation of 'nationality adjective or country, case-insensitive'. 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?

  Clearly states the tool shows top destinations and recommended visa pathways for a given nationality. Distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'transita_compare_visas' and 'transita_visa_details' by being an ideal first stop for the question 'Where should I move?'.

  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?

  Explicitly says 'Ideal first stop for the question 'Where should I move?', which tells agents when to use it. Does not explicitly mention when not to use or name alternatives, but the use case is clear.

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

• transita_visa_detailsA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description fully carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It details what the tool returns and mentions that the full checklist is part of a paid action plan, adding transparency. However, it omits potential side effects (likely none) or authentication 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and each sentence adds essential information without redundancy.

  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 (single parameter, no output schema), the description fully explains what the tool returns, including limitations about the checklist. The presence of sibling tools provides sufficient context for selection.

  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 the visa_id parameter with examples. The description reiterates its purpose and usage, adding value by showing how to obtain the id from related tools. Schema coverage is 100%, so the description complements it well.

  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 uses a specific verb ('fetch full details') and clearly identifies the resource ('single visa pathway') and the specific data included (eligibility, processing time, fees, etc.). It distinguishes from siblings like transita_compare_visas by focusing on a single visa.

  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 implies when to use the tool (for detailed information on a single visa pathway) and provides guidance on obtaining the visa_id via transita_match_visas or a resource. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the context is clear.

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