Kontomanager MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this is a 'low-level tool' and implies it's for SIM settings, but lacks details on permissions, side effects, or error handling. It adds some context but is incomplete for a mutation tool.

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 usage notes, all in three concise sentences with zero wasted words. Each sentence earns its place by providing essential guidance.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a mutation tool with 2 parameters, the description is adequate but has gaps: it doesn't cover return values, error cases, or prerequisites like needing an active number. It's minimally viable but not fully complete.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining 'setting_name' refers to keys like 'roaming_barred' or 'data_barred' (from 'get_sim_settings'), and 'enabled' controls on/off state. This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema.

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 ('Enables or disables'), the resource ('a specific SIM setting for the active number'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'toggle_roaming' by noting it's a low-level alternative. It avoids tautology by explaining functionality beyond the tool name.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives: it specifies to use 'get_sim_settings' to see available keys first, and advises that for roaming, 'toggle_roaming' is easier. This clearly defines context and exclusions.

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