germany-mcp-server

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 mentions data sources (Bundesnetzagentur/SMARD) and specific price types (Day-Ahead, EPEX Spot, BAFA), which adds some context. However, it lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, response format, or whether this is a read-only operation, which is a significant gap for a tool with no annotations.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter details. It uses bullet points for clarity, but could be slightly more concise by integrating the parameter explanation more seamlessly. Overall, it avoids unnecessary information and is well-structured.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is partially complete. It covers the purpose and parameter semantics well, but lacks details on behavioral aspects like response format, data freshness, or error handling. This leaves gaps that could hinder an AI agent's effective use of the tool.

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?

The description provides detailed semantics for the single parameter 'type', explaining that 'electricity' or 'strom' retrieves electricity prices and 'gas' retrieves gas import prices. With 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, this fully compensates by adding essential meaning beyond the basic schema, making the parameter usage clear.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('abrufen' - retrieve, 'Zeigt' - shows) and resources (German energy prices for electricity and gas). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on energy prices rather than traffic, parliamentary, weather, or other data sources, making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

The description implies usage by specifying the types of energy data available (electricity and gas prices), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No guidance on prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons with sibling tools is provided, leaving usage context inferred rather than explicit.

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