dutch-gov-mcp

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 'List' which implies a read-only operation, but does not cover aspects like pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, or what the output format entails (though an output schema exists). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the purpose with no wasted words. It directly states the action and resource, and the examples are concise and relevant, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 has 0 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema exists, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations, it lacks behavioral context like safety or performance traits. The description covers the basic purpose but does not fully address the gap left by missing annotations, making it incomplete for optimal agent use.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description adds value by specifying the resource as 'CBS statistical themes' and providing examples, which clarifies the tool's scope beyond the schema. Baseline is 4 for zero parameters, as the description compensates with contextual details.

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 verb 'List' and the resource 'CBS statistical themes', with examples like 'Arbeid, Bevolking, Economie' that clarify the scope. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_organizations' or 'list_tags' by specifying 'CBS statistical themes', though it doesn't explicitly contrast with similar tools like 'list_cbs_datasets' (not in siblings) or 'get_cbs_dataset'.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, context for usage, or comparisons to sibling tools such as 'search_cbs_datasets' or 'get_cbs_dataset', leaving the agent to infer usage based on the name alone.

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