Kolada MCP Server

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds valuable context by specifying the dataset scope (290 municipalities, 21 regions in Sweden) and filtering capabilities, which helps the agent understand the tool's behavior beyond the annotations.

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 efficiently structured in two sentences: the first states the purpose and filtering options, the second provides dataset context. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it appropriately sized and front-loaded.

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 (2 parameters, no output schema) and rich annotations, the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose, filtering, and dataset scope. However, it could slightly improve by hinting at output format or when to use versus specific retrieval tools, though annotations mitigate some gaps.

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 clear descriptions for both parameters (query for name filtering, municipality_type with enum values). The description mentions filtering by name or type, aligning with the schema but not adding significant extra meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents parameters well.

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 Swedish municipalities or regions with filtering by name or type, providing a specific verb ('Sök') and resource ('svenska kommuner eller regioner'). It distinguishes from most siblings by focusing on search rather than KPI analysis or direct retrieval, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'filter_municipalities_by_kpi' 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 implies usage context by mentioning filtering by name or type and providing counts (290 municipalities, 21 regions), suggesting it's for broad searches. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_municipality' (for specific retrieval) or 'filter_municipalities_by_kpi' (for KPI-based filtering), leaving some ambiguity.

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