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 value by specifying the output includes 'alla ingående nyckeltal' (all included key figures), which gives context about what information is returned. However, it doesn't disclose additional behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions beyond what annotations cover.

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 appropriately concise with two sentences that each serve a purpose: the first states the core functionality, and the second provides usage context. It's front-loaded with the main purpose. There's minimal waste, though the second sentence could be slightly more specific about the exploration context.

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 low complexity (single parameter, no output schema), the description combined with rich annotations (readOnly, idempotent, etc.) provides adequate context. The description specifies what information is returned (KPI group details with all key figures), which compensates for the lack of output schema. For a simple read operation, this is reasonably complete, though it could benefit from mentioning response format or error cases.

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 'group_id' clearly documented. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema (e.g., format examples, constraints, or relationships). With complete schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't need to given the schema's completeness.

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 action ('Hämta detaljerad information' - Get detailed information) and resource ('om en specifik KPI-grupp' - about a specific KPI group). It specifies the scope includes 'alla ingående nyckeltal' (all included key figures), which helps distinguish it from sibling tools like 'get_kpi_groups' (likely listing groups) or 'get_kpi' (single KPI). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'get_kpi_data' or 'get_kpis_by_operating_area' which might overlap in purpose.

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 some usage context with 'Användbar för att utforska relaterade KPIs' (Useful for exploring related KPIs), which implies when this tool is appropriate. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like 'get_kpi_groups' (for listing groups) or 'get_kpi' (for single KPI details). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving usage somewhat implied rather than explicit.

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