Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• notion-writeC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden, but it only says 'Create or update Notion pages' and mentions content blocks. It fails to disclose the append behavior, side effects of updates, required page_id/parent_id relationships, or output/confirmation behavior, leaving significant behavioral ambiguity.

  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 concise sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose, and the second adds relevant detail about supported content blocks, making it appropriately sized and well-structured.

  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?

  For a tool with 7 parameters and nested objects, the description is under-specified. It omits the 'append' action entirely and does not explain the distinction between create, update, and append, or when page_id versus parent_id is required. The rich schema covers parameter syntax but not the behavioral context an agent needs.

  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 provides descriptions for all parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no new parameter semantics beyond listing block types already enumerated in the schema's blocks enum, so it neither enhances nor detracts from schema clarity.

  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 creates or updates Notion pages via 'Create or update Notion pages' and lists supported content block types. It distinguishes itself from sibling read/query tools, but omits the 'append' action available in the schema, making it slightly incomplete.

  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?

  No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like notion-read or notion-query. The intended usage is only implied by the tool name and the phrase 'Create or update Notion pages', without explicit exclusions or alternative recommendations.

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

• notion-readB
  3.2/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  The description adds that it returns structured content including properties and child blocks, giving some behavioral insight. However, with no annotations, it omits details such as error handling, authentication, and whether it is strictly read-only in practical terms.

  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 clearly states the action and resource, with no redundant words or filler.

  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?

  The tool is simple, but the description does not clarify that exactly one of the three optional parameters should be supplied, and the absence of an output schema leaves return format ambiguous. Combined with no annotations, the description is incomplete 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 descriptions for all three parameters (page_id, block_id, database_id) with 100% coverage. The description maps these to the resource types but adds no extra semantic detail, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

  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 uses the specific verb 'read' and names the resources (pages, databases, blocks) from Notion, making the purpose clear. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tool 'notion-query', so it misses the top score.

  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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like notion-query or notion-write. It merely states what the tool does without context or exclusions.

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

• notion-queryA
  3.5/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal that results are 'summarized properties' and that filters/sorting are supported, but it doesn't disclose pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication expectations, or error handling. The word 'Query' implies read-only but not explicitly.

  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 filler. It front-loads the core action and resource, then adds the return behavior. Every word earns its place.

  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?

  For a tool with five parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is adequate but not fully complete. It covers the central behavior but omits operational details like pagination, result structure, and filter object construction. The schema helps by documenting parameters and linking to Notion's filter docs.

  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%, as all five parameters have descriptions in the input schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the conceptual context of filters and sorting but does not provide parameter-level details beyond what the schema already contains.

  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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Query a Notion database with filters and sorting.' It also states the return value as 'matching pages with summarized properties,' which helps distinguish from siblings like notion-read. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with those siblings.

  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 for querying Notion databases, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use it versus notion-read or notion-write. It doesn't provide exclusions or mention alternatives, so usage context is only implied.

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

• web-searchA
  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 carries the burden. It discloses the fallback behavior between Brave and DuckDuckGo, which is a behavioral trait. However, it does not detail result format, rate limits, or other operational details, leaving some gaps.

  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?

  Three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then implementation and use case. No redundant text.

  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 simple two-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description covers the main aspects: what it does, the use case, and engine fallback. It's moderately complete, perhaps leaving users to wonder about exact output format, but that's often implied.

  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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions for query and count. The description adds no specific parameter guidance, but the schema is sufficient, earning baseline 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 'Search the web for information' with a specific verb and resource. It also provides implementation context and a use case, distinguishing it from sibling tools that are notion-related or code execution.

  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 says 'Useful for research tasks' providing a use context. However, it does not explicitly address alternatives or when not to use it, so it's clear context without exclusions.

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

• code-runA
  4.1/5.0
  Behavior4/5

  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. It transparently reveals sandboxing, available built-ins, and denied capabilities (filesystem/network). It stops short of disclosing error handling or the format of the execution result, but the core behavioral traits are well covered.

  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 extremely concise and well-structured: two sentences, front-loaded with the main action and followed by key constraints. Every word contributes value and there is no redundancy.

  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 tool's main function and sandbox constraints, it omits crucial information about what the tool returns (e.g., stdout, last expression value, or promise resolution) and how errors are surfaced. Since there is no output schema, the description should have addressed this to be fully 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 input schema already provides descriptions for both parameters (code and timeout_ms), giving 100% schema coverage. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already states, achieving only the baseline score.

  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 'Execute' with a clear resource 'JavaScript code' and the context 'sandboxed environment'. This unambiguously identifies the tool's function and easily distinguishes it from the sibling notion and web-search tools.

  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 implies when to use the tool (when JavaScript execution is needed) and explicitly states exclusions (no filesystem or network access), helping the agent avoid misuse. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or elaborate on when not to use it beyond those constraints.

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