Katzilla MCP

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

Annotations already cover key behavioral traits (readOnlyHint: true, destructiveHint: false, idempotentHint: true, openWorldHint: true). The description adds valuable context beyond this: it specifies the return envelope format ('Katzilla envelope { data, quality, citation }'), explains quality scoring ('freshness/uptime/confidence'), and details citation components ('source URL, license, SHA-256 hash'). 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 efficiently structured in two sentences: the first states the purpose and source, and the second details the return format and components. It's front-loaded with core functionality and avoids unnecessary fluff, though it could be slightly more concise by integrating some details (e.g., source info) more seamlessly.

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 low complexity (1 optional parameter), rich annotations (covering safety and idempotency), and the presence of an output schema (implied by 'Returns the Katzilla envelope'), the description is complete. It explains the return structure and data quality aspects, which complements the structured fields effectively without redundancy.

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, with the single parameter 'type' fully documented (enum: ['hot', 'iced'], default: 'hot', description: 'Coffee type'). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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: 'Get coffee drink recipes and information.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('coffee drink recipes and information'), making it easy to understand. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, which are all data-fetching APIs but from different domains (e.g., agriculture, consumer, crypto).

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 implies usage context by mentioning the source ('Sample APIs (Free API)') and update frequency ('updates monthly'), which helps gauge data freshness. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other food/drink APIs) or any exclusions, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.

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