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 minimal behavioral context beyond this, only specifying that it retrieves detailed information via ID. No additional behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions are disclosed.

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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to understand quickly.

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 simplicity (1 parameter, 100% schema coverage, annotations covering safety), the description is minimally adequate. However, with no output schema, it doesn't explain what 'detailed information' includes, leaving gaps in understanding the return values. For a read-only tool with good annotations, this is acceptable but not comprehensive.

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 'ou_id' fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter beyond implying it's used to identify a specific organizational unit, which is already clear from the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema coverage is high.

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 detaljerad information' - 'Get detailed information') and resource ('en specifik organisationsenhet' - 'a specific organizational unit'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_organizational_units' or 'get_ou_types', which would require a 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_organizational_units' or 'get_ou_types'. It mentions retrieving by ID but doesn't specify prerequisites or when this approach is appropriate versus searching.

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