Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• delete_documentsB
  3.3/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations, the description only says 'delete' which implies a destructive action but lacks details on whether it is hard/soft delete, impact on related resources, or error handling.

  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?

  A single, direct sentence with no redundancy or wasted words.

  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?

  For a delete tool with two parameters, the description is minimal but functional. It does not mention the optional api_url parameter or the irreversible nature of deletion, but given the output schema exists, it is 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 coverage is 100%, so parameters are already documented. The description adds only the phrase 'by document ID', which adds minimal meaning beyond the schema.

  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 'Delete' and the resource 'one or more documents from Suparse', specifying the method 'by document ID'. This distinguishes the tool from siblings like extract_file or list_templates.

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

  Usage Guidelines2/5

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

  The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no note about irreversibility of deletion.

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

• extract_folderA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Discloses default result_mode and cleanup constraints, but lacks details on side effects like file deletion or non-idempotency. No annotations 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?

  Three sentences, front-loaded with main action, no redundant 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?

  Output schema present; description covers return values (task_id/document_ids vs JSON) and main complexity, though some parameters (split) lack behavioral context.

  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 covers all parameters 100%; description adds value for result_mode (defer vs return_json) and template_id (system template warning).

  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 it processes all supported files in a folder via Suparse, distinct from extract_file and other 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?

  Explains when to use defer vs return_json and cleanup validity, but doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives.

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

• download_resultsA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses disk writing, directory behavior for output_path, and cleanup. Lacks details on overwrite behavior, permissions, or error handling, but adequate for typical export tool.

  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, front-loaded with purpose, then usage and behavioral notes. No redundancy, 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?

  Given schema coverage and presence of output schema, the description covers main purpose, usage guidance, and key behavioral aspects. Slight gap in optional parameters like api_url and export_type, but schema handles them.

  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 each parameter is documented. The description adds value by explaining output_path directory behavior and format use cases, but does not provide deep additional semantics beyond schema.

  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 fetches an export and writes to local disk, specifies formats (CSV, XLSX, Google Sheets, saved JSON), and distinguishes from sibling fetch_json_results.

  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 advises when to use this tool versus fetch_json_results, mentions cleanup with delete_documents, and provides guidance on output_path behavior.

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

• extract_fileA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description discloses default mode (defer), behavior (uploads, polls, returns task_id/document_ids), and cleanup side effect (deletes documents). It does not mention rate limits, error handling, or idempotency, but covers the main behavioral traits adequately.

  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 no wasted words. Front-loaded with the primary purpose, then conditional details. Efficient and easy to parse.

  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 6 parameters and an output schema, the description covers the key behaviors and parameter interactions. It could mention the output schema briefly, but the context is sufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly.

  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%, and the description adds value by explaining defaults, mode conditions, cleanup validity, and template_id usage guidance (avoiding system template IDs). This goes beyond the schema 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?

  Clearly states it processes one local document through Suparse, with default behavior and mode options. Distinguishes from siblings like extract_folder and list_templates by specifying 'one local document' and mentioning related tools for retrieval.

  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 describes when to use defer vs return_json, and that cleanup is only valid with return_json. Also references download_results for other formats. However, it does not explicitly exclude use cases or mention when not to use this tool.

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

• fetch_json_resultsA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses potential large response and that it returns results directly in MCP response. Lacks specifics on error handling or authentication, but adequately covers key behavior.

  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, front-loaded with verb, no wasted words. Each sentence adds distinct value: purpose, usage caveat, alternatives, and post-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 complexity (3 params, output schema), description fully covers what the tool does, when to use it, alternatives, and follow-up actions. No gaps identified.

  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 descriptions for all parameters. Description adds no additional meaning beyond schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as schema already documents parameter purposes.

  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?

  Description clearly states it fetches JSON results for Suparse document IDs directly in MCP response. It specifies the resource (Suparse documents), action (fetch JSON), and distinguishes from siblings like download_results for other formats and delete_documents for cleanup.

  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 advises when to use ('only when you need the full JSON in context'), provides alternatives ('use download_results for CSV, XLSX, etc.'), and suggests post-step ('call delete_documents after this tool succeeds'). Complete usage guidance.

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

• list_templatesA
  4.9/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It thoroughly explains the behavioral distinction between team templates (usable) and system templates (discovery-only), and what to do when no template matches. No contradictions.

  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, each earning its place: first states purpose, second gives primary usage rule, third covers edge cases. Concise and front-loaded 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 has two optional parameters and an output schema (not shown but present), the description covers all relevant scenarios: listing templates, using team vs system, and handling missing templates. No gaps for effective use.

  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%, baseline 3. The description adds value for 'include_system' by clarifying that system templates are not directly usable, which the schema's description ('Include discovery-only system templates...') also hints at, but the tool description provides richer 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 'List extraction templates for choosing an extraction template,' specifying the verb 'list' and resource 'extraction templates.' It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'extract_file' and 'extract_folder,' which are extraction operations.

  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 explicitly instructs agents to use 'team_templates' for processing and explains when to use system templates (discovery-only). It also provides clear guidance for cases with no matching template: ask the user to add a system template or create a custom schema.

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