Kolada MCP Server

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

Annotations already provide strong behavioral hints (readOnlyHint: true, destructiveHint: false, idempotentHint: true, openWorldHint: false). The description adds valuable context beyond this: it specifies that data is 'faktiska' (actual/real) values, clarifies gender filter semantics (T=Totalt, M=Män, K=Kvinnor), and mentions the municipal/organizational unit scope. This enhances 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 states the core purpose, the second adds filtering capabilities. Every word earns its place with no redundancy, and key information (purpose, filters) is front-loaded appropriately for a tool with clear annotations and schema.

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 (5 parameters, 1 required), rich annotations (covering safety and idempotency), and full schema coverage, the description provides adequate context. It clarifies data nature ('faktiska') and filter semantics, though without an output schema, it doesn't describe return format or pagination—a minor gap for a read-only data retrieval 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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already documents all 5 parameters thoroughly (including the exclusive choice between municipality_id and ou_id, and gender enum meanings). The description adds minimal parameter semantics beyond the schema—only clarifying gender codes—so it meets but doesn't exceed the baseline 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: 'Hämta faktiska KPI-datavärden för specifika kommuner eller organisationsenheter' (Retrieve actual KPI data values for specific municipalities or organizational units). It specifies the verb (retrieve), resource (KPI data values), and target scope (municipalities/organizational units). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'get_kpi' or 'get_kpis', which might retrieve different scopes of KPI 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 implies usage context by mentioning filtering capabilities ('Kan filtrera efter år och kön'), but doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_kpi' or 'compare_kpis'. It lacks statements about prerequisites, exclusions, or named alternatives, leaving usage decisions to inference from the purpose.

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