Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• healthA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable context by naming specific fields to inspect (cascade.totalCaptchas, rateLimiter.queueSize), which helps the agent understand what the status output contains and how to interpret it. 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?

  The description is two sentences: the first front-loads the status categories, and the second gives targeted diagnostic trigger and interpretation guidance. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or 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 zero-parameter, read-only tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, when to use it, and how to act on results. It is fully sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly without needing additional documentation.

  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, and the description correctly avoids discussing any. Per the rubric, a zero-parameter tool gets a baseline of 4 because there is no parameter semantics to clarify.

  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 identifies the tool as a status/health check for the MCP server and lists specific components (cascade mode, rate-limiter, cache, config). It is distinguishable from sibling search/extract tools by focusing on server diagnostics. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'returns' or 'checks', making it slightly less direct.

  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 states when to call the tool: 'Call this if searches start failing or returning empty'. It also provides actionable follow-up advice about reducing search volume. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it falls 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.

• search_extractA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds valuable behavior beyond this: per-page extract failures are isolated, cloud mode disables the tool, and mode affects token consumption. These details help the agent anticipate failure modes and cost, without contradicting any annotation.

  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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core function, then elaborates on mode selection and constraints. Every sentence provides actionable information with no filler or repetition.

  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?

  The tool has an output schema, annotations, and a description that covers mode differences, token cost, failure isolation, and cloud limitation. This is complete for a combined search+extract tool with good structured metadata; nothing critical is missing.

  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%, with detailed descriptions for all parameters including mode trade-offs. The description reinforces the mode semantics but does not add significant meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the 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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'One-shot Google search + parallel extract of the top results.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like search, search_parallel, and extract by combining both functions. The mode parameter is explicitly tied to the purpose, reinforcing clarity.

  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 explicit guidance on when to use abstract vs full mode, including trade-offs on tokens and speed ('far fewer tokens', 'only when you need the actual article texts'). It also notes that the tool is disabled in cloud mode. It does not name sibling tools as alternatives, but the usage context is clearly implied.

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

• searchA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  Despite annotations marking readOnlyHint, the description goes far beyond by disclosing caching behavior (24h TTL), timing expectations (~4s first call, ~2s subsequent), CAPTCHA fallback with human interaction, and the fail-fast env var. This provides valuable operational context that annotations alone do not convey.

  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 somewhat long but front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence contributes unique operational facts (performance, caching, CAPTCHA, env vars) without redundancy. The 'Default limit 10 (max 20)' slightly duplicates schema, but overall it earns its place.

  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?

  The description covers all key operational aspects: output structure, caching, performance, error handling (CAPTCHA), and configuration via env vars. With an output schema present, return values are already defined, and the description fills the remaining gaps comprehensively.

  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 fully documents both parameters ('query' and 'limit') with descriptions and constraints, so the description adds little param-specific detail beyond the default limit and max. The caching and env var info are not directly about parameter syntax, 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 'Single Google search -> title/url/snippet per result', specifying the exact resource (Google search) and output. The word 'single' differentiates it from sibling search_parallel, and the context makes it unambiguous what this tool performs.

  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 clear practical usage guidance: 'prefer re-querying over caching results yourself', how to bypass cache for fresh queries, and the CAPTCHA/cloud-mode behavior. It implies the single-query use case but doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives like search_parallel, so no explicit exclusion.

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

• extractA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  The description goes well beyond the readOnlyHint/idempotentHint annotations by detailing HTML processing via Mozilla Readability, academic PDF auto-detection mechanisms, tiered depth modes, and best-effort errorInfo handling. This gives the agent a comprehensive understanding of the tool's 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 concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence earns its place, covering core functionality, domain-specific handling, tiered modes, and error behavior 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—HTML vs. PDF handling, multiple modes, and error handling—the description covers all essential aspects. The output schema exists, so return-value details are not needed. The description is complete enough for safe and correct invocation.

  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 provides complete descriptions for all three parameters (url, mode, max_chars), including explanations of modes and the truncation behavior. The tool description adds no meaningful parameter-specific information beyond what the schema already documents, so the baseline of 3 applies.

  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 a single public URL and returns clean article text. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search or search_extract by emphasizing it operates on a known URL rather than searching for one.

  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 clear context: the tool accepts a public URL, and advises using abstract mode to triage relevance before full extraction. However, it does not explicitly contrast with the sibling search_extract tool, so no explicit alternatives or exclusions are given.

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

• search_parallelA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses several critical behaviors: internal rate limit (~10/min), first-call warmup (5-10s), per-query failure isolation, and cloud-mode disabling. This significantly exceeds what annotations alone provide.

  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?

  Four sentences, each carrying essential information. The main action is front-loaded, and there is no filler or repetition of schema details.

  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?

  The description covers key behavioral constraints, rate limits, failure handling, and environment restrictions. An output schema exists, so return-value explanation isn't necessary. Minor inconsistency between schema minItems (1) and description (2-10) is a schema issue, not a description gap.

  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 both parameters, so the schema already explains 'queries' and 'limit'. The description reinforces the 2-10 query count and adds rate-limit context, but doesn't add new parameter-level 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 action: 'Run 2-10 Google searches concurrently.' It identifies the resource (Google searches) and the specific parallel capability, distinguishing it from the sibling 'search' tool.

  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 ('compare multiple angles in one call') and an explicit when-not-to-use ('do not loop this for bulk scraping'). However, it doesn't explicitly name an alternative tool for single searches, so it misses the full 'alternatives' criterion for a 5.

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