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 hints, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it specifies the source ('DigitalOcean Status (Public API)'), update frequency ('monthly'), and details about the return format ('Katzilla envelope { data, quality, citation }') including quality metrics and citation information, which 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 highly concise and well-structured: it starts with the core purpose, adds source and update details, and concludes with output specifics. Every sentence adds essential information without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse for an AI agent.

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 simplicity (0 parameters, annotations covering key behavioral traits, and an output schema implied by the description of the return format), the description is complete. It explains what the tool does, its source, update frequency, and output structure, providing all necessary context for correct invocation without overloading with extraneous details.

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 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately does not discuss parameters, focusing instead on the tool's behavior and output. This meets the baseline for tools with no parameters, as it avoids unnecessary details.

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: 'Get the current status of DigitalOcean services.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('current status of DigitalOcean services'), and distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on a specific provider's status, unlike other tools that handle different domains like agriculture, consumer, or crypto data.

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 retrieve the current status of DigitalOcean services, sourced from a public API with monthly updates. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name specific alternatives among siblings, such as other status-checking tools, though the sibling list shows no direct equivalents.

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