Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• list_sitemapsA
  3.6/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It indicates a read operation (listing), which is standard, but does not mention permissions, rate limits, or any side effects. For a simple list tool, this is minimally adequate.

  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, well-structured sentence with no unnecessary words. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and outputs.

  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?

  Given no output schema and no annotations, the description lacks details on return format, pagination, or what 'status and counts' entail. For a tool with minimal complexity, this may suffice, but it leaves gaps for optimal agent usage.

  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% for the single parameter. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema's 'Exact property from list_properties', so it meets the baseline but does not enhance understanding.

  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 lists submitted sitemaps for a property, including status and counts. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (e.g., inspect_url, list_properties) by focusing specifically on sitemap listing.

  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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives or indicate any prerequisites (e.g., need to call list_properties first). The parameter hint 'Exact property from list_properties' implicitly suggests a dependency, but explicit usage conditions are missing.

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

• inspect_urlA
  3.8/5.0
  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 discloses what the tool returns (index status, canonical, etc.) but omits behavioral traits such as read-only nature, authentication, rate limits, or any side effects.

  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 lists key outputs with no unnecessary 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?

  For a simple two-parameter inspection tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the return information reasonably well. It lacks error handling or edge case details but is sufficient for basic understanding.

  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% with clear descriptions for both parameters. The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, so 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: providing Google's index status for a single URL, listing specific data points like index status, canonical URL, last crawl, and mobile/rich-result issues. It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'inspect_urls' which implies multiple URL inspection.

  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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'inspect_urls' for multiple URLs. It implies single-URL inspection but lacks direct guidance on prerequisites or when not to use.

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

• query_search_analyticsA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses data lag (~2-3 days) and date format. However, it does not mention pagination behavior, rate limits, or authentication requirements. The transparency is adequate but not thorough.

  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 with no wasted words. The first sentence defines purpose and output, the second adds critical usage details (date format, lag, dimension examples). Every sentence earns its place.

  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?

  Given no output schema and no annotations, the description covers key aspects (metrics, grouping, date lag) but omits pagination (startRow, rowLimit), filtering (searchType, queryContains), and behavior details. It is adequate but not fully complete for a complex tool with 9 parameters.

  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 description coverage is 89%, so most parameters are documented. The description adds value by providing example dimension arrays and noting date format and data lag, which complements the schema. This extra context justifies a score above baseline.

  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 queries real Search Console performance data and lists metrics (clicks, impressions, CTR, average position) grouped by chosen dimensions. It distinguishes from sibling tools like inspect_url or list_properties by focusing on analytics data.

  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 provides context for use (querying performance data) and gives dimension examples, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or exclusions. It implies usage but no when-not-to or comparisons.

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

• compare_periodsA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations exist, so description carries full burden. It discloses output structure (clicks/impressions/position deltas sorted by biggest change) and that it's a read-only computation ('math is already done'). Does not mention rate limits or permissions, but is generally transparent.

  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, front-loaded with the core action, zero wasted words. Every sentence adds value.

  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 tool with no output schema, the description explains the computed output (deltas, sorted) and use cases. Could mention that it returns a list of items and that prior period is automatically calculated, but overall adequate.

  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 67%, and description adds value by explaining date range comparison and dimension (page/query). However, it does not elaborate on rowLimit, searchType, or siteUrl beyond the schema, missing opportunity to clarify constraints.

  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 it's a 'biggest-movers analysis' comparing two periods with deltas, sorted by biggest change. It distinguishes from siblings like query_search_analytics by offering pre-computed period comparison, not raw data.

  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 'Use this for 'what fell/grew', 'this month vs last', and trend diagnosis' – providing clear when-to-use guidance. Lacks explicit when-not-to or alternative tools, but context is sufficient.

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

• inspect_urlsA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses batch limit (up to 10) and per-URL error reporting. Does not explicitly state read-only nature or authorization needs, but the description is adequate for a simple batch check.

  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 compact sentences that convey purpose, batch limit, error handling, and usage recommendation. 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?

  Covers main functional aspects: batch, error reporting, and usage advice. Lacks output format description, but given simplicity and sibling context, it is reasonably complete.

  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% with good descriptions for both parameters. Description adds value by indicating 'siteUrl' must come from list_properties and 'inspectionUrls' are full URLs, plus the batch 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 clearly states 'Batch index-status check' and specifies the action of inspecting up to 10 URLs in one call. It distinguishes from the sibling 'inspect_url' by emphasizing batching and efficiency.

  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 suggests using this tool 'for indexing audits instead of ten single calls,' providing clear context on when to prefer it. Could mention when not to use it, but the guidance is sufficient.

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

• list_propertiesA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It describes the read-only list operation adequately but does not detail response format or potential constraints like rate limits.

  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-load the core action and add practical guidance. Every sentence adds value with no 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?

  For a simple list tool with no output schema, the description covers the use case and return value context. Minor improvement could explicitly state the return format, but it's sufficient.

  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 tool has zero parameters, so the description need not add parameter info. Baseline score of 4 applies as per rules for 0-parameter tools.

  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 'List' and resource 'Google Search Console properties', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like query_search_analytics or list_sitemaps. The example siteUrl values further clarify the purpose.

  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 states 'Call this first to get exact siteUrl values', providing clear guidance on when to use this tool. It does not exclude other uses but sets a priority context.

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