Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• searchA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Annotations already cover read-only, non-destructive, open-world behavior. The description adds that results are citable snippets and that full pages require crawl, which is useful context. It does not disclose rate limits, pagination behavior, or edge cases, so it adds only modest behavioral value beyond 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 two focused sentences that lead with the tool's core purpose, state the return shape, and point to the correct sibling for full-page retrieval. Every sentence contributes value with 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 a rich input schema, output schema, and annotations, the description is largely complete for agent use. The only meaningful gap is the lack of explicit routing among news, trending, and general web search, but the stated use cases cover most practical scenarios.

  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 schema fully documents all seven parameters including enums and defaults. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, which matches the baseline for high schema coverage.

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

  Purpose4/5

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

  The description clearly states the tool searches the live public web and returns citable results with specific fields. It also references the crawl sibling to signal that full-page retrieval is a separate action. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from news or trending, so it is not a full 5.

  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 explicit usage context: use when the user needs current information, sources, or research. It also routes follow-up full-page extraction to crawl. It lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance or a direct comparison with news and trending, so it falls short of full guidance.

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

• newsA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, destructiveHint), the description adds that crawl_results incur an additional credit cost per successful retrieval, a behavioral detail not in annotations. It also describes return fields.

  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: the first states purpose and when to use, the second describes output. No wasted 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?

  Given the tool's complexity (7 params, 1 required) and presence of output schema, the description covers core purpose, output format, and a key behavioral aspect (credit cost). It could mention the default search engine or max_results default, but the schema covers these.

  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?

  With 100% schema description coverage, the description adds value by explaining the credit cost for crawl_results, which is not in the schema. It also clarifies the optional extracted text relates to crawling. This goes beyond the schema's parameter descriptions.

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

  Purpose4/5

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

  The description states 'Search current news' and specifies returning articles with title, URL, snippet, and optional text. It clearly identifies the resource (current news) and action (search), but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'trending' 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 says 'when the user asks about recent events, announcements, or coverage', giving context for use. However, it does not mention when not to use this tool or explicitly compare with alternatives among siblings.

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

• sitemapA
  4.1/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  The description aligns with annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint) and adds context about discovering related public links, enhancing understanding of the tool's read-only, open-world 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?

  The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the action and usage context without unnecessary 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?

  While the description covers the basic purpose, it lacks specificity about the scope of link discovery (e.g., same domain only, depth), leaving some ambiguity for a tool with a simple interface.

  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?

  The input schema already covers the parameter description completely (100% coverage), so the tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides.

  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 discovers related public links and specifies the context of exploring a site's structure or available pages, distinguishing it from sibling tools like search or fetch.

  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 provides a clear use case ('when the user wants to explore a site's structure or available pages') but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives.

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

• trendingA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and destructiveHint. The description adds that it lists items from two specific platforms, which is useful context. No contradictions; it supplements annotations well.

  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 sentence that front-loads the action and scope. Every word is necessary and conveys the purpose efficiently.

  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?

  The tool has an output schema, so return values need not be described. The description covers the use case and parameters. Minor gap: no mention of potential rate limits or behavior differences between platforms, but overall complete for a simple tool.

  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 parameter descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so a baseline score 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 verb 'list' and the resource 'trending repositories or stories' from specific sources (GitHub, Hacker News). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'search' and 'news' by focusing on 'popular now' trends.

  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 explicitly says 'when the user asks what is popular now', providing a clear trigger. It does not specify when not to use or explicitly name alternatives, but the context of sibling tools makes the guidance adequate.

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

• crawlA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already establish readOnly, openWorld, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context by stating the tool only handles public URLs and that it extracts a readable title and full text, which clarifies scope and likely output shape beyond the annotations alone.

  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, efficient sentence that leads with the tool's core behavior and captures the essential use case. Every word earns its place and there is no redundant or misleading filler.

  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 single-parameter, read-only tool with output schema available and strong annotations, the description is complete. It states the source of the URL, the public access requirement, and the output concept well enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

  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?

  The input schema already describes the single `url` parameter with a format and a 'Public HTTP or HTTPS URL' description at 100% coverage. The tool description adds useful source context ('supplied by the user or returned by search') but does not materially extend the parameter 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 states a specific action ('Extract the readable title and full text') and a specific resource ('a public URL'), making it clear this tool retrieves and reads a single page rather than searching for pages. It also implicitly differentiates from sibling discovery tools like search, news, and trending by framing the URL as an input that can come from the user or search results.

  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 conveys when to use the tool: given a public URL, either supplied by the user or returned from a search. It does not explicitly list excluded cases or contrast with sibling tools, so it falls short of the explicit 'when-not-to-use' criterion, but the usage context is sufficiently clear.

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