Kolada MCP Server

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond this - it mentions retrieving 'detaljerad information' (detailed information) and that it's useful for analysis, but doesn't specify what 'detailed information' includes, response format, or any rate limits. With good annotation coverage, the bar is lower, and 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 two sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides usage context. Both sentences earn their place, though the second could be more specific. No wasted words or redundancy.

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 has good annotations (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive) and 100% schema coverage for its single parameter, the description is moderately complete. However, with no output schema, the description doesn't explain what 'detaljerad information' (detailed information) includes in the response. For a retrieval tool, more detail about the return structure would be helpful, though annotations cover the safety profile adequately.

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 one parameter 'group_id' clearly documented as 'Kommungrupp-ID' (Municipality group ID). The description doesn't add any parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides - it mentions retrieving information about a 'specifik kommungrupp' (specific municipality group) which aligns with the parameter but doesn't provide additional context about valid IDs, format, or examples. Baseline is 3 when 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 detaljerad information om en specifik kommungrupp inklusive alla medlemskommuner' (Retrieve detailed information about a specific municipality group including all member municipalities). It specifies the verb ('Hämta' - retrieve) and resource ('kommungrupp' - municipality group), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_municipality_groups' which likely lists groups rather than details of a specific group.

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: 'Användbar för att analysera grupper av liknande kommuner' (Useful for analyzing groups of similar municipalities). This implies when to use it (for analysis of similar municipalities), but doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives like 'get_municipality_groups' for listing groups or 'get_municipality' for individual municipality details.

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