Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• audit_accessibilityA
  3.5/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It mentions the tool runs an audit and returns issues, but does not disclose whether the tool is destructive, has rate limits, requires authentication, or handles invalid URLs. This lack of transparency could lead to misuse.

  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 consists of two concise sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose and output. No redundant information, front-loaded with key details.

  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's low complexity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is minimally complete. However, it lacks context on behavior (e.g., idempotency), limits, and error handling, which would help the agent understand the tool's full impact.

  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% for the single parameter 'url', which is already described as 'The URL to audit for accessibility'. The description adds no further semantic meaning beyond this, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

  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: running an accessibility audit targeting specific standards (WCAG 2.1 AA and EAA). It specifies the resource ('accessibility audit'), the verb ('run'), and the output (issues with references and fixes). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like audit_performance or audit_seo.

  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 accessibility auditing but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like quick_check or audit_site. No 'when not to use' or comparative context, leaving the agent to infer.

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

• audit_performanceA
  3.5/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations exist, so the description must bear full burden. It lists analysis areas but does not disclose safety (read-only), side effects, rate limits, or prerequisites, leaving the agent uncertain about operational context.

  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 listing key aspects, but it could be better structured (e.g., bullets) for readability. 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 the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers the main purpose and metrics. However, it omits details about output format or response structure, which would improve completeness.

  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% (the only parameter 'url' has a description). The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score 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 it analyzes page performance and lists specific metrics (load time, page size, etc.), distinguishing it from sibling tools like quick_check, audit_site, audit_accessibility, and audit_seo which cover other aspects.

  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 performance analysis but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like quick_check or audit_site, nor any when-not conditions.

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

• audit_seoA
  3.5/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, and the description only lists what it checks without disclosing behavioral traits like read-only nature, rate limits, or handling of inaccessible pages.

  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 sentence that efficiently enumerates SEO elements. It is not verbose, but could benefit from slightly more structure.

  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 low parameter count and no output schema, the description adequately specifies the action. However, it omits details about the output format or response structure.

  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 a single parameter url. The description adds little beyond the schema description, 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 it checks a page's SEO and lists specific elements (title, meta description, headings, etc.), distinguishing it from siblings like audit_accessibility.

  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 SEO auditing but provides no explicit guidance on when to use vs. alternatives like quick_check or audit_performance.

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

• audit_siteA
  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 burden. It states the tool returns scores, grades, and prioritized fixes, indicating a read-only audit. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool does not modify the site or require authentication, leaving some uncertainty.

  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 states the purpose and coverage, the second states the 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?

  For a tool with simple parameters and no output schema, the description covers inputs and outputs adequately. It mentions specific standards (WCAG 2.1 AA/EAA) and output types. Could be more complete by noting any limitations or prerequisites, but overall sufficient.

  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 covers both parameters (url and format) with clear descriptions. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so it scores at the baseline of 3.

  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 a comprehensive site audit'), specifies the coverage areas (accessibility, performance, SEO, design quality, mobile responsiveness), and distinguishes from sibling tools like audit_accessibility or quick_check by indicating it is a full audit.

  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 a full overview but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the specialized siblings (e.g., audit_accessibility) or when not to use it. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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

• compare_sitesA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior2/5

  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 does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond the basic action, such as side effects, auth requirements, or what 'all audit categories' entails.

  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, front-loaded with the purpose, and contains no redundant 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?

  For a tool with two string parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate. It covers purpose and usage context, but could mention what the comparison output looks like.

  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 url1 and url2. The description adds no extra meaning 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 tool compares two websites side by side across all audit categories. This is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like audit_site (single site) and quick_check (quick audit).

  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 suggests use cases like competitive analysis or before/after comparisons, providing good context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternative tools.

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

• quick_checkA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  The description notes that the tool returns 'scores and grades only, no detailed issues,' which sets expectations about output scope. With no annotations provided, the description bears full burden and could mention error handling or required authentication.

  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, immediately conveying the core functionality and use case.

  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 simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description provides sufficient context about what it does and returns. It could be slightly more explicit about the structure of scores/grades.

  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 covers 100% of the parameter ('url'), and the description adds minimal additional context beyond the schema's own description. The phrase 'URL to check' is straightforward, so the description doesn't significantly 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 provides a quick site health overview with scores and grades only, distinguishing it from more detailed sibling tools like audit_site or audit_seo.

  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?

  It describes the tool as a 'fast way to triage a URL,' implying it's for quick initial checks rather than detailed analysis. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or name specific alternatives.

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