Kolada MCP Server

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

Annotations already indicate this is a read-only, non-destructive, idempotent operation with a closed-world assumption. The description adds value by specifying that it returns a list and that Swedish terms work best, which are behavioral traits not covered by annotations. However, it doesn't mention pagination, rate limits, or authentication needs, leaving some gaps in behavioral context.

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, consisting of two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose and a key usage tip (Swedish terms). Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it easy for an AI agent to parse 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 moderate complexity (search with multiple filters), rich annotations (covering safety and idempotency), and full schema coverage, the description is reasonably complete. It specifies the return type (list) and a language preference, though without an output schema, it could benefit from more detail on result structure. However, it adequately complements the structured data for agent use.

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 each parameter well-documented in the input schema. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema, only reinforcing that Swedish terms are best for the query parameter. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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 searches for KPIs using free-text, publication date, or operating area filters and returns a list of matching KPIs. It specifies the verb 'search' and resource 'KPIs' with filtering methods, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_kpis' or 'search_municipalities' beyond mentioning Swedish terms work best.

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 through its filtering options (free-text, date, area) and notes that Swedish search terms yield best results, providing some context. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_kpis' (which might fetch all KPIs without filtering) or 'search_municipalities' (which searches a different resource). No explicit exclusions or alternatives are named.

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