Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• ai_searchB
  3/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent safety, so the description adds value by disclosing asynchronous retrieval behavior for tavily_research ('resubmit its research_id'), provider-specific behaviors, and the output nature (citations and reasoning). 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?

  Two sentences with the purpose front-loaded and provider details compactly listed. Every clause contributes meaning without unnecessary elaboration.

  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?

  Covers when-to-use, provider differences, and the async resubmission pattern, and annotations cover safety. However, it omits response structure and contains a provider/enum inconsistency, leaving an agent with an ambiguous picture for a 5-parameter tool without an output schema.

  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 coverage is 100%, so the description need not repeat parameter details, but it adds provider characteristics that conflict with the enum by naming exa_answer and linkup which are not valid values. It does usefully explain research_id for Tavily, but the misinformation undermines reliability.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose2/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  Tautological: description restates name/title.

  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?

  Explicitly says 'Use when you need synthesized answers rather than raw search results', giving a clear when-to-use signal. However, it lists exa_answer and linkup as providers even though the schema enum only allows kagi_fastgpt and tavily_research, making the provider-selection guidance partially misleading.

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

• web_extractB
  3/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds provider capability context (e.g., firecrawl for scraping/crawling/interactive, kagi for summarization). However, the mention of 'exa' as a provider is misleading because the input schema's provider enum omits exa, creating uncertainty about available behavior.

  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 compact, front-loads the purpose, and packs useful provider information into a short list. Minor redundancy ('process' with 'extract') and the misleading exa reference are the only blemishes; overall it earns its length.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness2/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a 9-parameter tool with 5 enums and provider-specific modes, the description is too thin. It does not explain how to choose a provider for a given task, what the different modes do relative to providers, or how to handle edge cases like exa's absence from the provider enum. There is no output schema, and the description gives no hint about return value shapes, so an agent would likely need to infer provider-mode compatibility.

  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 parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds value by loosely mapping providers to capabilities (e.g., kagi for summarization, firecrawl for scraping), which helps select provider and mode. But it introduces a conflict by listing exa although the provider enum does not include it, and it does not explain the relationship between provider and mode beyond the parentheticals.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose2/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  Tautological: description restates name/title.

  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 provides explicit 'Use when...' conditions covering the main scenarios, and the provider list gives a starting point for mode selection. It does not state when not to use this tool or point to alternatives like web_search or ai_search, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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

• web_searchB
  3.1/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Annotations already carry the safety profile (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false), lowering the burden on the description. The description adds useful context that search depth, topic, time range, safe search, raw content, and auto_parameters behave conditionally 'when supported by the provider,' but it does not disclose result-format, citation, pagination, or cost behavior, which would add meaningful transparency.

  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 compact and front-loaded: purpose appears in the first sentence, usage in the second, and the provider rundown is dense but informative. The title is a verbatim duplicate of the description, which is mildly redundant, but no other space is wasted.

  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 12 parameters, 5 enums, and no output schema, the description carries a heavy burden. It covers purpose, usage context, and provider-specific parameter behavior, but it does not describe the result format or return expectations, and the provider list conflicts with the schema enum. For such a configurable tool, these are meaningful gaps.

  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, and the description does add meta-information: several parameters (search_depth, topic, time_range, safe_search, raw_content, auto_parameters) are provider-dependent, which is not in the schema. However, the description lists 'exa' as a valid provider while the schema enum omits it, which could mislead an agent into sending an invalid provider value and offset the added value.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose2/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  Tautological: description restates name/title.

  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 an explicit when-to-use directive ('Use when you need to find web pages, articles, or data') and adds provider-selection guidance by use case (e.g., tavily for factual/citations, brave for privacy/operators). It does not mention sibling alternatives or state when not to use this tool, stopping 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.