Koleo MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses what categories of data are returned, which is helpful, but omits error handling behavior, authentication requirements, or whether the data is cached/real-time.

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?

Single sentence with information-dense structure. Front-loaded with the action, specifies the resource, and efficiently lists the three data categories returned. No redundant or wasted words.

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 low complexity (single parameter) and existence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the high-level return value categories. However, the complete lack of input parameter documentation (0% schema coverage) leaves a significant gap that the description should have addressed.

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 0% and the description fails to compensate adequately. While it mentions 'a station,' it does not clarify whether the 'station' parameter expects an ID, name, or code, nor its format, leaving the input semantics underspecified.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') with clear resource ('station info') and enumerates exact data fields returned (address, opening hours, facilities). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on trains, routes, or schedules.

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 listing specific static data fields (address, hours) that differentiate it from real-time or routing tools, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus tool_search_stations or how to obtain the station identifier.

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