Katzilla MCP

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations by specifying the source (FreeToGame), update frequency (daily), and return format (Katzilla envelope with quality scores and citation details), which aids in understanding data freshness and auditability.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and key features, followed by source and return details. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 complexity (3 parameters, 100% schema coverage, annotations, and an output schema), the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage context, source information, update frequency, and return format, compensating adequately where structured data might not fully convey behavioral aspects like data freshness and citation.

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 100%, with all parameters (platform, category, sortBy) well-documented in the schema. The description adds minimal semantic value by mentioning filtering by platform and genre and sorting options, but does not provide additional details beyond what the schema already specifies, such as examples or usage nuances.

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 tool's purpose with specific verbs ('browse free-to-play games') and resources ('games'), and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying its unique domain (free-to-play games) and source (FreeToGame). It goes beyond a tautology by detailing the action and scope.

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 usage by listing filter options (platform, genre) and sort criteria, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or any exclusions. It implies usage through the filtering capabilities but lacks explicit guidance on alternatives or prerequisites.

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