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 of behavioral disclosure. While it hints at returning 'all dates,' it does not specify the date format, date range (historical vs. future), pagination behavior, or error handling when a train number is invalid.

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 with no redundant words and the core purpose front-loaded. However, given the lack of parameter documentation in the schema, appropriate sizing would have warranted a second sentence clarifying the required inputs.

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?

For a tool with a simple two-parameter schema and an existing output schema (which removes the need to describe return values), the description adequately covers the core function. However, the complete lack of parameter documentation in both schema and description leaves a significant gap.

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 by explaining the 'brand' and 'train_number' parameters. It only implicitly references 'a specific train' (mapping to train_number) but completely omits what 'brand' represents or the expected formats for either parameter.

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 identifies the action ('Get') and resource ('dates/operating calendar') with specific scope ('when a specific train runs'). It implicitly distinguishes from siblings like tool_get_train_route (path) and tool_get_realtime_timetable (times) by focusing on operating dates.

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 states what the tool does but provides no guidance on when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., when to use this instead of tool_get_train_by_id or tool_get_realtime_timetable). No prerequisites or conditions are mentioned.

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