Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• open-staedel-explorerA
  3.5/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It says 'Open the interactive...app' but does not explain what this means in practice—e.g., does it launch a browser, return a URL, or require specific permissions? The effect of the optional parameters on behavior is also omitted.

  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 of 14 words that is concise and front-loaded with the action and purpose. Every word contributes meaning; there is no fluff.

  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 that an output schema exists, the description need not explain return values. However, the tool is simple (open an app) but lacks details about what the output actually is (e.g., a URL, a redirect). The description is complete for a basic understanding but leaves some ambiguity about the interaction model.

  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 baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional meaning to the parameters beyond what is already in the schema (set and from). No further elaboration is provided.

  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 uses a specific verb ('Open') and resource ('the interactive Städel Explorer app'), and clearly indicates the tool's purpose is for visual browsing and filtering. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that list sets, get single objects, or search objects.

  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 the tool is used when a visual interface is desired ('for browsing and filtering objects visually'), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search-museum-objects' or provide any exclusions or prerequisites.

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

• list-setsA
  3.6/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the basic function. It does not reveal whether the operation is read-only, how results are paginated, authentication requirements, or any side effects. The agent is left to infer behavior from the name and minimal text.

  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 with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.

  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 simplicity (no parameters, output schema present), the description adequately explains the tool's purpose and scope. However, it could mention whether the list is exhaustive or paginated, or clarify the role of OAI-PMH, but overall it is sufficient for a basic list endpoint.

  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?

  There are no parameters (schema coverage 100%), so the description adds marginal value by clarifying that 'sets' refer to collections/departments and specifying the data source. For a zero-parameter tool, this is above the baseline of 4.

  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 specifies the action ('lists'), the resource ('organizational sets'), and adds explanatory context ('collections/departments') and the source ('Städel Museum OAI-PMH interface'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools that deal with museum objects or a specific explorer.

  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., when searching for objects vs. listing sets), and does not mention any prerequisites or contextual scenarios.

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

• get-museum-objectA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description is the sole source. It discloses the return includes metadata and optionally a base64 image, but does not detail potential errors, authentication requirements, or the extent of 'detailed information'. Adequate but not comprehensive.

  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 long, front-loaded with the main action, and contains no extraneous 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 simple tool with only two parameters and an existing output schema, the description adequately covers the input format and return behavior. It could mention potential error responses, but overall it is sufficient for an agent to use 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?

  Schema coverage is 100% and the description adds minimal new information beyond the parameter descriptions, except mentioning that the image is returned as base64. The description does not elaborate on the objectId format beyond what the schema says.

  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 detailed information for a single Städel museum object using an OAI identifier or bare number, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'search-museum-objects' and 'list-sets'.

  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 specifies the input format (OAI identifier or bare object number) and the optional return of an image. It implies usage when you have a specific object ID, but does not explicitly contrast with siblings or mention when to avoid using it.

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

• search-museum-objectsA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description handles transparency. It discloses the OAI-PMH protocol, the inability to do full-text search, and that it returns identifiers only. However, it does not mention rate limits, authentication, or pagination behavior (though resumptionToken hints at it). It adds some value beyond the schema but could be more explicit about operational constraints.

  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 with no wasted words. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second clarifies limitations and usage constraints, and the third explains how the output should be used. It is front-loaded and efficiently structured.

  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 4 parameters, none required, and an output schema exists. The description covers the key aspects: what it returns (identifiers), how to use them (with get-museum-object), and the constraint to filter. It does not explain pagination in detail or error handling, but for a listing tool, this is largely 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?

  Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context by stating that filtering by date or Set is required, which reinforces the purpose of 'from', 'until', and 'set' parameters. However, it does not add new information beyond what the schema already provides. The description for 'resumptionToken' is not reiterated but is clear in 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 'harvests' and the resource 'list of object identifiers from the Städel Museum'. It distinguishes itself from siblings by noting the use of OAI-PMH, the lack of full-text search, and the requirement to filter by date or Set, and it explicitly connects to the sibling get-museum-object 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 tells when to use the tool (to get identifiers via OAI-PMH) and when not to (no full-text search). It specifies required constraints (must filter by date or Set) and mentions the output's purpose for use with get-museum-object. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives like list-sets or open-staedel-explorer, but the context is clear enough.

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