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 this: it specifies the source ('MangaDex (Public)'), update frequency ('updates daily'), and details about the return format ('Katzilla envelope { data, quality, citation }') including quality scores and citation information. This enhances transparency without contradicting 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?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by filtering capabilities, return details, and source information. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the tool, the second lists filters, the third describes returns, and the fourth provides source and update info. It is efficiently structured with no wasted words.

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 (search with multiple filters), 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, usage context, behavioral details like source and updates, and return format, making it sufficient for an agent to understand and use the tool effectively.

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, providing clear details for all 6 parameters. The description mentions filtering by 'title, content rating, tags, status, and demographics,' which aligns with parameters like title, contentRating, and status, but does not add significant meaning beyond what the schema already documents. With high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 explicitly states the tool's purpose as 'Search and discover manga titles from MangaDex — the world's largest manga library.' It specifies the verb ('search and discover'), resource ('manga titles'), and source ('MangaDex'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools which cover domains like agriculture, consumer, crime, etc. This is specific and avoids tautology.

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: for searching manga with filters like title, content rating, tags, status, and demographics. It implicitly suggests usage for manga discovery tasks. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives among siblings, which prevents a score of 5.

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