Kolada MCP Server

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds the ID format constraint (4-digit codes with examples) and clarifies it's for detailed information, which provides useful context beyond annotations. However, it doesn't describe return format or error behavior.

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?

Two concise sentences: first states purpose, second provides ID format with concrete examples. No wasted words, front-loaded with the core function. Every sentence earns its place by adding necessary 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?

For a simple read operation with good annotations (safe, idempotent) and a single well-documented parameter, the description is reasonably complete. It lacks output schema, so doesn't describe return values, but given the tool's simplicity and annotation coverage, this is a minor gap. Sibling context is handled implicitly through specificity.

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 the parameter fully documented in the schema. The description reinforces the ID format with examples ('0180' for Stockholm, '1480' for Göteborg), adding minor value but not significant semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given 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 verb ('Hämta' - Get/Retrieve) and resource ('detaljerad information om en specifik kommun' - detailed information about a specific municipality), specifying it's for a specific municipality via ID. It distinguishes from siblings like 'search_municipalities' (which likely searches) and 'get_municipality_kpis' (which gets KPIs rather than general details).

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 clear context: use when you need detailed information about a specific municipality identified by its 4-digit ID. It doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives, but the specificity (vs. search or KPI-focused tools) implies usage boundaries.

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