Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get_page_markdownA
  3.7/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the tool's behavior by specifying what content is excluded and mentions optional parameters like waiting for selectors and timeouts, which adds useful context. However, it lacks details on error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or output format, leaving some behavioral aspects unclear.

  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 highly concise and front-loaded, consisting of just two sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and key exclusions. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to understand at a glance.

  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 moderate complexity (5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is somewhat complete by explaining the extraction scope and exclusions. However, it lacks details on output format, error cases, or performance considerations, which would be helpful for an AI agent to use it effectively. The absence of an output schema increases the need for more completeness in the description.

  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%, meaning all parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description does not add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the 'waitForSelector' or 'timeout' in more detail. However, it implies the tool's focus on 'clean markdown' extraction, which contextualizes the parameters but doesn't enhance their individual meanings.

  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 with specific verbs ('extract clean markdown content') and resources ('from a URL'), and distinguishes what it does by specifying what it excludes ('without navigation, headers, footers, or sidebars'). It explicitly defines the scope of extraction as 'only the main content,' making the purpose unambiguous and well-differentiated.

  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 by stating it extracts 'clean markdown content' from URLs, suggesting it's for content extraction tasks. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions. With no sibling tools mentioned, the lack of comparative guidance is less critical but still leaves usage context somewhat vague.

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