Katzilla MCP

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies the data source ('Radio Browser (Free API)'), update frequency ('updates monthly'), and details the return envelope structure ('Katzilla envelope { data, quality, citation }') with quality metrics and citation components. This enriches understanding 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 covers purpose, source, and updates; the second details the return format. Every sentence adds essential information without redundancy, making it front-loaded and concise.

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 (covering safety and idempotency), and the presence of an output schema (implied by 'Returns the Katzilla envelope'), the description is complete. It explains the purpose, data source, update cadence, and return structure, providing sufficient context for effective use without needing to detail output values further.

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 clear descriptions for both parameters ('country' and 'limit'). The description mentions filtering by country, aligning with the schema, but does not add significant semantic details beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Search internet radio stations worldwide by country'), resource ('radio stations'), and scope ('worldwide by country'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'fun__radio-browser' by emphasizing international data and monthly updates, making the purpose explicit and differentiated.

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 ('Search internet radio stations worldwide by country'), but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name specific alternatives among siblings. The context is sufficient for typical usage, though lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons.

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