Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get-single-web-page-contentA
  3.7/5.0
  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. It mentions 'follows a provided URL and extracts the main page content,' but lacks details on failure modes, handling of pagination/dynamic content, rate limits, or response structure. This is a significant gap for a read tool with no annotation coverage.

  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 fluff. It front-loads the primary action and then immediately provides the use case. Every word earns its place, and it is highly scannable.

  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 simple fetch tool, the description is adequate but not complete. It does not describe the return format, error handling, or edge cases (e.g., redirects, large pages). Without an output schema, this missing information is more noticeable, though the tool's simplicity mitigates the 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add extra clarification for 'maxContentLength' or 'url' beyond what the schema already provides, but this is acceptable given the schema's completeness.

  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 specific action ('Extract and return the full content from a single web page URL') and distinguishes itself from search tools by noting it is 'without performing a search.' This effectively differentiates it from sibling tools like full-web-search.

  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 provides clear context on when to use the tool: when you have a specific URL and want detailed content, as opposed to searching. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when NOT to use it, so it stops short of full guidance.

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

• full-web-searchA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose a genuine behavioral trait: the tool performs a two-stage operation (search, then follow links to extract full page content), which tells the agent this is heavier than a plain search. However, it stops short of warning about the costs or failure modes of that behavior — latency, a slow underlying website, partial fetch successes, or content truncation — which an agent would benefit from knowing.

  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 short sentences, each of which earns its place: the first defines the action, the second states the positioning and mechanism, and the third gives the explicit alternative routing. The content is dense yet minimal, with the most important facts appearing in the first sentence.

  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 moderately simple 4-parameter tool with rich schema coverage, the description provides the essential facts and points to the correct alternative. The main missing piece is absence of an expected latency/failure profile for the full-page extraction step — coverage that would be especially useful given the 'fetches full content' behavior and the format of results is not specified. Still, what's missing is the optional, not-basic, information, and the definition is arguably strong enough.

  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 every parameter (query, limit, includeContent, maxContentLength) is already documented at the schema level with sensible defaults. The description adds no meaningful information about parameters while also requiring none because the structured definitions do the heavy lifting. 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 first sentence states a specific verb and resource: 'Search the web and fetch complete page content from top results.' It further clarifies its mechanism by explaining it 'follows the resulting links to extract their full page content,' which unambiguously distinguishes it from siblings like get-web-search-summaries and get-single-web-page-content. An agent can understand exactly what this tool does without opening any other definition.

  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 explicitly routes for the lightweight case: 'Use get-web-search-summaries for a lightweight alternative,' giving clear when-to-use guidance and naming the competing tool. It also positions itself as the right choice for comprehensive research. It does not, however, cover the case where a single known URL is already in hand and get-single-web-page-content should be used, so the exclusion guidance is slightly incomplete.

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

• search-gdweb-designsA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

  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 reveals that the tool applies a dashboard-managed exclusion list, returns metadata for multiple results, and does not generate implementation documents. It does not describe response structure or any side effects, but the stated behaviors are meaningful for selection.

  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?

  Two sentences with no filler. The usage condition is front-loaded, followed by behavioral boundaries and the alternative route. Every clause contributes selection or behavioral context.

  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 description is complete enough for tool selection and invocation: it explains purpose, usage boundary, exclusion behavior, and non-generation of implementation documents. Since there is no output schema, the exact metadata fields returned are left vague, but this is a minor gap for a lightweight search-list tool.

  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%, with all five parameters documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 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 states a specific purpose: returning a lightweight list of GDWEB references with metadata, and explicitly contrasts itself with generate-gdweb-design-indexes. It clearly identifies what the tool does and how it differs from the most relevant sibling.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines5/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description begins with 'Use this tool only when the user wants a lightweight list of GDWEB references,' giving an explicit trigger condition. It then names the alternative tool and the conditions under which that sibling should be used, providing clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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

• get-web-search-summariesA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It clearly discloses that the tool only returns snippets and does not follow links, which is useful behavioral context. It could add details about rate limits or exact response shape, but the core behavior is transparent and non-contradictory.

  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 behavior, then immediately provides usage guidance and the alternative, making every sentence earn its place.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness5/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it explains what results look like (snippets/descriptions), when to choose it, and how it differs from the primary sibling. The schema covers parameter details, so nothing essential is missing.

  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 the schema already documents both 'query' and 'limit' adequately. The description adds contextual framing ('lightweight alternative') but does not add new parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema provides.

  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 states a specific action ('Search the web') and precise resource ('return only the search result snippets/descriptions'), clearly distinguishing it from full-web-search. It also names what it does not do: follow links to extract full page content.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines5/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description explicitly states when to use this tool ('lightweight alternative... when you only need brief search results') and when not to ('For comprehensive information, use full-web-search instead'). It directly names the main alternative, leaving little to inference.

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

• generate-gdweb-design-indexesA
  4.6/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  With no annotations present, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does so thoroughly. It reveals the internal exclusion list, the isolated per-result MCP sampling requests with no previous-result context, the file-writing sequence, the return format (only paths and statuses), and the client prerequisite of supporting sampling.

  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 dense but front-loaded, opening with the trigger condition before moving to behavioral details. There is minor redundancy between 'one completely separate MCP sampling/createMessage request' and 'Each isolated request contains only one result,' but every sentence otherwise contributes non-obvious operational information.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness5/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the tool's complexity, eight parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description supplies the essential context: when to use it, how it executes, what it produces, what it returns, and what the client must support. An agent has enough information to select and invoke this tool 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?

  All eight parameters have schema descriptions at 100% coverage, so the schema already documents parameter meaning and defaults. The tool description adds workflow context but no additional parameter-level semantics, matching 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 identifies a concrete verb-resource pair: it generates DESIGN_INDEX files from GDWEB references, and explicitly enumerates the deliverables (layout analysis, frontend specifications, implementation plans, DESIGN_INDEX files). It also differentiates the tool from search-gdweb-designs by stating it should never be replaced with that sibling plus a combined summary.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines5/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The first sentence gives an explicit automatic trigger condition: use whenever the user asks for GDWEB references with layout analysis, specifications, plans, or DESIGN_INDEX files. The last sentence provides a clear when-not rule naming the alternative, search-gdweb-designs plus a combined summary, which is exactly the routing an agent needs.

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