Kolada MCP Server

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

Annotations already declare this as a read-only, non-destructive, idempotent operation with closed-world data. The description adds useful context about what KPI groups are ('tematiska samlingar av nyckeltal') and their organizational purpose, which helps the agent understand the semantic context beyond the technical safety profile. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 sentence states the core functionality with optional search, and the second sentence provides helpful context about what KPI groups are and their purpose. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words.

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?

For a simple read operation with comprehensive annotations and full parameter documentation, the description provides adequate context. It explains what KPI groups are and their organizational role, which helps the agent understand the semantic domain. The main gap is the lack of output schema, but the description compensates reasonably given the tool's simplicity.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'query' fully documented in the schema. The description mentions 'valfri sökning' (optional search) which aligns with the schema but doesn't add meaningful semantic context beyond what's already in the structured data. This meets 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: 'Lista KPI-grupper' (List KPI groups) with optional search functionality. It explains that groups are thematic collections of KPIs that help organize them by topic. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from its sibling 'get_kpi_group' (singular vs. plural), which would be needed for a score of 5.

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 'valfri sökning' (optional search) and explaining the organizational purpose of KPI groups. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_kpi_group' (singular) or 'search_kpis', nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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