Hämta kalenderhändelser
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| akt | No | Aktivitetstyp eller kombinationskod | |
| org | No | Organ (UTSK, kammaren etc.) | |
| tom | No | Till datum (YYYY-MM-DD) | |
| from | No | Från datum (YYYY-MM-DD) | |
| sort | No | Sorteringsordning (t.ex. "DTSTART") | |
| limit | No |
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 states 'fetch' implying a read operation, but does not describe return format, pagination, filtering behavior, or any potential side effects. This is insufficient for a tool with six parameters and no output schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at a single short sentence, but it is under-specified. It is front-loaded and contains no fluff, but it omits necessary context. This is more under-specification than effective conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has six parameters and no output schema or annotations, yet the description provides only a bare statement of purpose. It does not explain what the calendar events are, how parameters interact, what the response looks like, or any limitations. The schema covers parameters but the overall context is incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 83%, so the input schema already documents most parameters with meaningful explanations. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, which is acceptable given the high coverage. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Hämta kalenderhändelser' clearly identifies the resource (calendar events) and the action (fetch). However, it does not differentiate this tool from the many sibling get_* tools, which would require mention of specific scoping or context. It is clear but lacks sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description is just a single phrase with no context, prerequisites, or exclusions. There is no mention of alternatives or typical use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Many tools target specific data types (documents, speeches, votes, members), but there is notable overlap between similar fetch/search tools, such as get_dokument vs get_dokument_innehall, and search_dokument vs search_dokument_fulltext. Descriptions help, but an agent could easily select the wrong tool for a task.
Tool names mix Swedish and English inconsistently (e.g., get_betankanden vs get_dokument, get_regering_document vs get_g0v_document_content). Prefixes vary (get, search, fetch, list, batch, enhanced, analyze, summarize) without a clear pattern, making the set feel haphazard.
With 32 tools, the server is heavy and likely overwhelms an agent. While the domain is broad, many tools could be consolidated (e.g., paginated fetch variants, multiple search methods), and the count exceeds the typical well-scoped range.
The server covers a wide range of Swedish government data: documents, members, votes, questions, reports, and calendars. Minor gaps exist, such as no direct single-vote retrieval or per-member document listing, but the core informational needs are well covered.