Kolada MCP Server

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

The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it specifies that the tool returns 'vanliga' (common) types with descriptions and provides concrete examples of the output format. Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, idempotent behavior with a closed world, so the description appropriately focuses on what data is returned rather than repeating safety characteristics.

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 immediately states the tool's purpose and provides helpful examples. Every element earns its place: the core functionality is stated first, followed by illustrative examples that clarify the output format without unnecessary elaboration.

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-only lookup tool with no parameters and comprehensive annotations, the description is reasonably complete. It explains what data is returned and provides examples, though it could benefit from mentioning whether the list is static/cached or dynamic, and clarifying the relationship to sibling organizational unit tools. The absence of an output schema makes the example particularly valuable.

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?

With 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 4. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist, and instead focuses on what the tool returns. It provides semantic context about the output being a list of common types with descriptions and examples.

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 en lista över vanliga organisationsenhetstyper och deras beskrivningar' (Get a list of common organizational unit types and their descriptions). It specifies the verb ('Hämta' - Get) and resource ('organisationsenhetstyper' - organizational unit types), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'get_organizational_unit' or 'search_organizational_units'.

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. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_organizational_unit' or 'search_organizational_units', nor does it specify use cases or exclusions. The example given ('t.ex. V11=Förskola, V15=Grundskola') illustrates output format but doesn't guide usage decisions.

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