Check the KoboToolbox MCP Server Setup

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds that it only returns pass/fail lines and exact fix commands, not performing fixes itself, which is useful behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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?

Three short sentences front-load the purpose, then give usage timing and return format. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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 simple diagnostic tool with one optional parameter, the description covers what it checks, when to run it, and what it returns. Annotations cover safety, and the parameter is fully specified by the schema.

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 does not mention the response_format parameter at all. While the schema's enum and default make the parameter self-documenting, the low coverage means the description was expected to compensate and doesn't.

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 the specific verb 'Diagnose' and names concrete configuration items: Kobo connection, API token, output directory, and Python report renderer. This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling form/submission operations.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use instructions: run it first when a tool fails for an unclear reason or right after installing the server. It doesn't state when not to use it or name alternatives, but as a dedicated diagnostic tool this is clear context.

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