Katzilla MCP

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it specifies the data source (Open-Meteo with CC-BY 4.0 license), update frequency (real-time), and details about the return structure (Katzilla envelope with quality scores and citation including SHA-256 hash). This enhances understanding of data provenance and reliability.

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 efficiently structured in two sentences: the first states the purpose and source, and the second explains the return format and additional metadata. Every sentence adds essential information without redundancy, making it front-loaded and appropriately sized 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity, rich annotations (read-only, idempotent, etc.), and the presence of an output schema (implied by 'Returns the Katzilla envelope'), the description is complete. It covers purpose, source, behavioral traits, and output structure, leaving no significant gaps for an agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting latitude and longitude parameters with their constraints. The description does not add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate parameter documentation through the schema alone.

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 the specific action ('Get current air quality data'), resources (PM10, PM2.5, CO, NO2, O3), and source (Open-Meteo). It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying air quality data rather than weather, climate, or other environmental data sources listed among siblings like environment__canada-weather or environment__openaq.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: to obtain real-time air quality data for a given location from Open-Meteo. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name specific alternatives, but the context is sufficiently clear given the specialized nature of air quality data among environmental tools.

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