Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• image_searchB
  3.1/5.0
  Behavior2/5

  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 only states the tool searches an archive, but omits key aspects: pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, or side effects. The description adds minimal value beyond the tool's basic function.

  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 a single concise sentence with no wasted words. However, it lacks structural elements like bullet points or explicit breakdown of parameters and behavior. It is efficient but could be more informative without sacrificing brevity.

  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 11 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain return value format, pagination, date range semantics, or the effect of options like safe_search. The tool handles complex queries, but the description provides only a high-level overview.

  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 91%, so baseline is 3. The description does not elaborate on any parameter meanings beyond the schema. While it mentions the type of content, it does not clarify how parameters like query or date filters interact with the archive.

  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 searches over 1.8 billion archived images on Arquivo.pt, specifying the types of content (historical photos, logos, graphics) and the scope (Portuguese web). This verb+resource combination effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like search (text) or list_versions.

  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 (e.g., search, list_versions). It does not mention prerequisites, context, or when not to use it. The sole sentence implies a general use case but offers no comparative or exclusionary information.

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

• list_versionsA
  3.6/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It only says 'List every archived capture' and 'CDX query,' which is minimal. It does not disclose pagination, sorting behavior, or what the output looks like, relying heavily on the schema which already provides some detail.

  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 fluff. The first states the action and resource, the second provides a use case. Front-loaded and efficient.

  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?

  With 10 parameters and no output schema, the description is too brief. It does not explain return format, pagination, or how to combine parameters for specific queries, leaving the agent to infer from schema alone.

  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 high (90%), so baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning; all semantics are deferred to the parameter descriptions in 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 tool lists archived captures of a specific URL (CDX query) and provides a use case (seeing how a page changed over time). It distinguishes from siblings like get_snapshot or extract_text by focusing on listing historical versions.

  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 'Use to see how a page changed over time,' giving clear context for when to use it. It does not mention when not to use it or compare directly to siblings, but the purpose is well-defined.

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

• extract_textA
  3.7/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses HTML stripping but does not mention error behavior, permission requirements, or return format. This is adequate but not rich.

  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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently communicates the core action and outcome without extraneous 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?

  Given the lack of output schema and annotations, the description is adequate for a simple retrieval tool but does not specify return format or error handling, leaving some 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?

  The schema has 67% description coverage (missing max_chars description). The tool description adds no extra parameter information, so baseline score 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 verb 'fetch', the resource 'archived snapshot', and the result 'readable text content (HTML stripped)'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_screenshot (image) and get_snapshot (possibly raw HTML).

  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 implies usage for archived web pages but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_snapshot or search. No when-not-to-use or alternative tool names are mentioned.

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

• searchA
  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 must carry the full behavioral burden. It describes a read-only search operation and mentions optional scoping, but does not detail pagination, rate limits, or result format. The behavior is implied but not fully disclosed.

  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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the purpose. It has no wasted words, but could include a bit more detail without becoming verbose. It is appropriately sized for a search tool.

  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 the tool has 8 parameters and no output schema, the description provides a high-level overview but does not explain all filtering options or pagination behavior. The schema covers the details, but the description could mention additional filters like collection and mime_type. It is minimally complete.

  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 schema coverage is high (88%), so the schema already explains most parameters. The description adds minimal value by mentioning date and site scoping but does not clarify parameters like 'max_items' or 'collection'. The description does not significantly enhance parameter understanding 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 tool performs full-text search across the Portuguese Web Archive, specifying the verb 'search' and the resource 'Arquivo.pt'. It also distinguishes from sibling tools like 'extract_text' or 'get_screenshot' by focusing on search functionality.

  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 a clear use case: finding pages that ever contained given terms, with optional date or site scoping. Although it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives, the context of sibling tools helps differentiate. The guidance is adequate but lacks explicit exclusions.

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

• get_snapshotA
  4.1/5.0
  Behavior2/5

  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 only implies idempotency (getting a URL) but fails to mention read-only nature, rate limits, or error behavior (e.g., missing snapshot).

  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 purpose, no wasted words. Highly efficient.

  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?

  No output schema, but description mentions 'archive URL' which is sufficient. Minor gap: no mention of return format or error handling, but acceptable for a simple retrieval tool.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters5/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The description adds significant value beyond the input schema by noting that omitting timestamp fetches the latest capture. With 100% schema coverage, this additional guidance fully clarifies parameter usage.

  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 retrieves the archive URL for a snapshot, and distinguishes by mentioning 'latest capture' option. It contrasts with siblings like get_screenshot or extract_text.

  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?

  Provides clear context for using the tool (getting snapshot archive URL) but does not explicitly state when not to use or compare to siblings. Omission of timestamp for latest capture is a usage hint.

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

• get_screenshotA
  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 URL return, inline embedding, and timestamp behavior. It does not cover error cases or limitations, but the core behavior is clear.

  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 main purpose and key options, with no redundant or misleading 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?

  Adequately covers main functionality given the tool's simplicity and 100% schema coverage. Lacks return format details but not critical for a screenshot tool.

  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, but description adds value by explaining the default behavior (omit timestamp for latest) and the utility of inline (for model viewing).

  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 gets a PNG render of an archived page from Arquivo.pt, differentiating it from sibling tools like get_snapshot by specifying PNG format and inline embedding option.

  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?

  Provides explicit guidance on using inline=true for embedding and omitting timestamp for latest capture. However, it does not mention when to use this tool over siblings like get_snapshot.

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