Kolada MCP Server

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds context about the batch size limit (up to 25 KPI IDs per call), which is useful behavioral information not in the annotations. However, it doesn't describe response format, error handling, or other traits like rate limits. With annotations covering core traits, the description adds some value but not rich behavioral context.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a constraint. Every word earns its place: the first sentence defines the action and resource, the second specifies the batch limit. There's no redundancy or fluff, making it appropriately sized and efficient.

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 (one parameter, read-only operation), rich annotations (covering safety and idempotency), and 100% schema coverage, the description is reasonably complete. It adds the batch size context, which is helpful. However, without an output schema, it doesn't describe return values (e.g., format of retrieved KPIs), leaving a minor gap. For this simple tool, it's mostly adequate.

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 'kpi_ids' parameter fully documented in the schema (array of strings, min 1, max 25 items). The description mentions 'Accepterar upp till 25 KPI-ID:n per anrop' (Accepts up to 25 KPI IDs per call), which aligns with but doesn't add meaning beyond the schema. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description doesn't compensate with additional semantics.

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 flera nyckeltal (KPIs) via deras ID:n i en enda förfrågan' (Retrieve multiple key performance indicators (KPIs) via their IDs in a single request). It specifies the verb ('hämta' - retrieve) and resource ('nyckeltal/KPIs'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'get_kpi' (singular) or 'get_kpi_data' beyond the batch aspect. The description is clear but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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: when you need to retrieve multiple KPIs by their IDs in one call, with a limit of 25 IDs. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_kpi' (for single KPI) or 'get_kpi_data' (which might have different parameters). The guidance is implied but not explicit about alternatives or exclusions.

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