Koleo MCP Server

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full disclosure burden. It identifies the operation as a search (read-only implication) and mentions return fields (IDs, slugs, types), but omits critical behavioral traits: fuzzy vs exact matching, pagination, result limits, or rate limiting constraints.

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?

Two efficient sentences with zero waste. Purpose and return value are front-loaded immediately. Appropriate length for the tool's complexity.

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?

Barely adequate given 0% schema coverage and no annotations. Mentioning return fields provides some value despite existing output schema, but the lack of parameter documentation for optional filters (type, country) creates significant gaps in contextual completeness.

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%, requiring heavy compensation. Description only implicitly maps 'query' to station name via 'by name' phrase. Completely fails to document 'type' and 'country' parameters—critical filters for a station search tool.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'Search' with clear resource 'train stations' and scope 'by name'. It effectively distinguishes from siblings like tool_get_station_info (retrieval by ID) and tool_search_connections (route finding).

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?

Implies usage when looking up stations by name, but provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over tool_get_station_info or how it relates to the workflow with tool_search_connections. No 'when-not-to-use' or prerequisite guidance provided.

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