Kolada MCP Server

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

Annotations cover read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent behavior, but the description adds valuable context: it mentions 'Snabb och pålitlig - använder cachad KPI-katalog' (Fast and reliable - uses cached KPI catalog), which informs about performance and data freshness. This goes beyond annotations, though it doesn't detail rate limits or error handling.

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 and front-loaded with the core purpose. The second sentence adds filtering context, and the third provides behavioral insight (cached catalog). All sentences contribute value without redundancy, though it could be slightly more structured for clarity.

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 (3 parameters, 1 required), rich annotations, and 100% schema coverage, the description is fairly complete. It adds caching context and references a sibling tool ('list_operating_areas'). However, without an output schema, it doesn't describe return values or pagination, leaving a minor gap.

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%, so parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds minimal semantics by mentioning filtering by operating area and implying the tool retrieves KPIs, but it doesn't provide additional details like parameter interactions or usage examples beyond what's in the schema.

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: 'Visa tillgängliga KPIs för en kommun' (Show available KPIs for a municipality). It specifies the resource (KPIs) and action (show/retrieve) and mentions filtering by operating area. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'get_kpis_by_operating_area' or 'get_kpis', which have overlapping functionality.

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 mentioning filtering by operating area and referencing 'list_operating_areas' for available options. It doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_kpis_by_operating_area' or 'get_kpis', nor does it specify exclusions or prerequisites beyond the required municipality_id.

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