Download competition data files from a Kaggle kernel and obtain a download URL by providing the kernel owner's username and slug.
Download competition data files. Returns download URL.
Args:
user_name: Kernel owner username.
kernel_slug: Kernel slug name.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| user_name | Yes | ||
| kernel_slug | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description should disclose behaviors. It only states 'Download' and 'Returns download URL', omitting details like authentication, expiry of URLs, or side effects. Minimal transparency.
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?
Very concise with a clear structure including an Args section. Could be more front-loaded with the purpose, but overall efficient.
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 2 required parameters and existence of output schema, the description lacks context on how to obtain values (e.g., what is a kernel slug) and what the output URL contains. Incomplete for a tool with no annotations.
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 coverage is 0% (no descriptions in schema). The description adds brief explanations for both parameters ('Kernel owner username', 'Kernel slug name'), which is helpful but minimal. Does not specify format or examples.
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 it downloads competition data files and returns a download URL. However, the tool name 'kernel_output' suggests it might be for kernel output, while the description says 'competition data files', causing slight ambiguity. It distinguishes from sibling 'competition_download' only by name but not explicitly in description.
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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives like 'competition_download' or 'kernel_session_output'. No prerequisites or context provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.