Kolada MCP Server

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

Annotations already provide clear behavioral hints: readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond this - it mentions gender filtering support ('Stöder könsfiltrering') which is useful but doesn't describe rate limits, authentication needs, or data format. With comprehensive annotations, the description adds some value but not rich behavioral disclosure.

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 three sentences that each serve a purpose: stating the core function, suggesting usage context, and mentioning a key feature (gender filtering). It's front-loaded with the main purpose. While efficient, the Swedish language might create minor accessibility issues for non-Swedish speaking agents.

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, 3 required), comprehensive annotations, and 100% schema coverage, the description is adequate but not complete. It doesn't explain the return format (no output schema exists), data granularity, or potential limitations. For a trend analysis tool, more context about the nature of the returned trend data would be helpful.

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 all parameters well-documented in the schema. The description mentions gender filtering ('Stöder könsfiltrering (T/M/K)') which aligns with the 'gender' parameter enum, but doesn't add meaningful semantic context beyond what the schema already provides. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 historisk trenddata för ett nyckeltal som visar förändringar över tid' (Retrieve historical trend data for a key performance indicator showing changes over time). It specifies the verb ('Hämta' - retrieve) and resource ('historisk trenddata för ett nyckeltal' - historical trend data for a KPI). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'get_kpi' or 'get_kpi_data', which likely retrieve different types 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 provides implied usage context: 'Användbart för att analysera utveckling och identifiera trender' (Useful for analyzing development and identifying trends). This suggests when the tool is appropriate, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like 'get_kpi' (which might retrieve current values) or 'analyze_kpi_across_municipalities' (which might compare across locations). No explicit exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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