Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• mek_search_fulltextA
  3.7/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations provided, so description must cover behavior. It does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, any rate limits, or pagination defaults beyond parameter defaults.

  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?

  Front-loaded purpose, then concise Args section. Every sentence adds value, though Python docstring format slightly verbose.

  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?

  Adequate for a search tool with 4 parameters. Lacks return value description (snippets, total results) but output schema absent and not critical.

  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?

  With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds essential meaning: query syntax (exact phrase with quotes), broadtopic filter values, exact page_size options, and page numbering. Compensates well.

  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?

  Clearly states the verb 'search' and the resource 'MEK document full text (HTML and PDF)'. Distinguishes from siblings like mek_search_simple by specifying full-text search.

  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?

  Implies usage for full-text search but no explicit guidance on when to use vs siblings (e.g., simple/advanced search or field list). Agent must infer from names.

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

• mek_search_simpleA
  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 must disclose behavior. It mentions AND logic and wildcards, but does not confirm read-only nature, authentication needs, or any side effects. The behavioral disclosure is 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 concise, with a clear introductory sentence followed by a bulleted list of parameters. No redundant information, and all sentences are necessary.

  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?

  The description covers parameter usage but lacks information about the output format or structure (no output schema). Pagination behavior is partially described but total results or maximum are not mentioned. Sibling tools exist but no comparison is provided.

  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?

  Schema coverage is 0%, yet the description provides full parameter details: examples for creator, clarification that title can be partial, page_size allowed values (10,50,100), and page being 1-based. This adds significant value beyond the bare schema.

  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 it searches MEK bibliographic metadata, calling it 'simple search', which implies basic functionality. It lists the supported fields, but does not contrast with sibling tools like mek_search_advanced or mek_search_fulltext, limiting differentiation.

  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 explains that fields are combined with AND logic, wildcards are supported, and at least one of the main four fields must be provided. However, it does not specify when to use simple search versus the other search tools.

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

• mek_search_advancedA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses important behavior: no server-side paging (MEK returns all hits, max_results only limits return), operator handling, and options like accent_insensitive and include_processing. It does not explicitly state read-only status, but the search context implies non-destructive usage.

  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 moderately long but well-structured with an overview paragraph followed by a bullet-like Args list. Every sentence serves a purpose, though the Args list could be slightly more concise without losing clarity.

  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 high parameter count (18), no output schema, and no annotations, the description comprehensively explains the tool's logic, parameters, and constraints. It lacks details on return format or error handling, but for a search tool, the coverage is strong.

  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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides detailed explanations for all 18 parameters, including the multi-row structure, operator values ('and', 'or', 'not'), and the purpose of each field. However, it could clarify the exact format of field values (alias vs raw MEK) beyond referencing mek_list_search_fields.

  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 'Advanced MEK bibliographic search with up to 5 field-specific criteria rows.' It uses a specific verb ('search') and resource ('MEK bibliographic'), and distinguishes itself from siblings (mek_search_simple, mek_search_fulltext) by emphasizing the multi-row, operator-based advanced nature.

  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 explains the row-and-operator logic and refers to mek_list_search_fields for field values. It implicitly indicates this is for complex queries via the name 'advanced', but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus simpler alternatives or provide exclusions.

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

• mek_list_search_fieldsA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It indicates a read-only listing operation with no side effects. While it doesn't mention authentication or static/dynamic nature, the simplicity of the tool makes implicit transparency adequate.

  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?

  Single sentence, direct, front-loaded with the purpose. No redundant words or unnecessary details.

  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, parameterless tool with no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: what it lists and for which tools. Minor lack of detail on output or authentication, but overall adequate.

  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?

  No parameters exist, so baseline score of 4 applies. Description doesn't need to add parameter info, and the schema coverage is complete by default.

  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?

  Description clearly specifies the verb 'List' and the resource 'available field names', and explicitly states the context of use for 'mek_search_advanced and fulltext topic filters', distinguishing it from sibling 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?

  Description implies usage before mek_search_advanced or mek_search_fulltext to know available fields, but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or exclusion of mek_search_simple. However, context is clear enough for effective tool selection.

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