Kolada MCP Server

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

Annotations cover key behavioral traits (read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description adds context about the purpose of groups (for comparing similar municipalities), which is useful but doesn't disclose additional behaviors like rate limits, auth needs, or output format. It doesn't contradict annotations, so a baseline score is appropriate given the annotation coverage.

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 concise with two sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and utility. It's front-loaded with the main action ('Lista kommungrupper') and avoids unnecessary details. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating purpose from usage guidance.

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 (1 optional parameter, no output schema) and rich annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and hints at usage but lacks details on output format, error handling, or examples. For a simple read-only tool, it meets minimum requirements but could be more complete for agent usability.

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 'query' parameter documented as 'Sökterm för att filtrera grupper efter titel' (Search term to filter groups by title). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond this, such as examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is justified as the schema handles 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: 'Lista kommungrupper' (list municipality groups) and provides examples like 'storstadsregioner, kustkommuner etc.' (metropolitan regions, coastal municipalities, etc.). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on groups rather than individual municipalities or KPIs, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives. The purpose is specific but could be more precise about 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 by stating 'Grupper hjälper till att jämföra liknande kommuner' (Groups help to compare similar municipalities), suggesting this tool is for grouping municipalities for comparison. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus siblings like 'compare_municipalities' or 'get_municipality_group', and no exclusions are provided. Usage is implied but not clearly defined.

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