Koleo 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. It only hints at behavior through the word 'upcoming' (implying a forward-looking time window), but fails to disclose how many results are returned, whether data is real-time or cached, error handling for invalid stations, or the default behavior when the date parameter is omitted.

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, efficiently structured sentence with no redundant words. It is front-loaded with the action verb. However, extreme brevity contributes to the lack of necessary detail in other dimensions.

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?

While an output schema exists (relieving the description of return value documentation), the combination of zero schema descriptions, no annotations, and ambiguous sibling relationships means the description is insufficient. It should explain the date parameter's default behavior and clarify the distinction from departure queries.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description needed to compensate but only implicitly references the 'station' parameter ('at a station'). The 'date' parameter is completely undocumented despite having a default null value that presumably triggers current-day behavior, which the description fails to clarify.

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 action (Get), resource (train arrivals), and scope (upcoming, at a station). However, it fails to distinguish from the sibling tool 'tool_get_departures', which could easily be confused given the identical structure and domain.

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 provided on when to use this versus 'tool_get_departures', 'tool_get_realtime_timetable', or 'tool_search_connections'. The 'upcoming' qualifier implies temporal filtering but does not explicitly exclude historical data or explain the time window.

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