Kolada MCP Server

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds value by specifying the return content ('fullständig metadata inklusive publiceringsdatum och könsuppdelning' - 'complete metadata including publication date and gender breakdown'), which isn't covered by annotations. However, it doesn't mention potential errors (e.g., invalid ID), rate limits, or authentication needs, leaving some behavioral aspects uncovered.

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 two concise sentences in Swedish, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by return details. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff, making it highly efficient and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 (1 parameter, 100% schema coverage, rich annotations), the description is mostly complete. It clarifies the return content, which compensates for the lack of an output schema. However, it could slightly improve by hinting at error cases or linking to siblings, but overall it's adequate for this low-complexity tool.

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 a single parameter 'kpi_id' fully documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what's in the schema (e.g., format examples beyond 't.ex. "N15033"'), so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting without extra value from the description.

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 ('Hämta detaljerad information' - 'Retrieve detailed information') and resource ('om ett specifikt nyckeltal (KPI) via dess ID' - 'about a specific key performance indicator (KPI) via its ID'), distinguishing it from siblings like get_kpis (plural) or get_kpi_data (which might return different data). The Swedish text is precise and unambiguous.

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 specifying it retrieves details for a specific KPI via ID, suggesting it should be used when you have a known KPI identifier rather than for searching or listing. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives like get_kpis (for listing) or search_kpis (for searching), leaving some room for improvement in sibling differentiation.

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