Kolada MCP Server

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it warns about result truncation to a limit (max 100) and advises checking the 'truncated' field in the response. Annotations cover read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent aspects, but the description provides practical usage details not in the structured data.

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 well-structured: two sentences that efficiently state the purpose, filtering options, and a critical behavioral note about truncation. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 complexity (search with filtering), rich annotations, and full schema coverage, the description is mostly complete. It lacks an output schema, but the description hints at response structure ('truncated' field). It could be more explicit about return format, but it covers key usage aspects adequately.

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 the schema fully documents all parameters. The description mentions filtering by name, municipality, or type, which aligns with the schema but does not add significant semantic value beyond it. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation.

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: 'Sök efter organisationsenheter' (search for organizational units) with specific examples like schools, preschools, and elderly homes. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on organizational units rather than KPIs or municipalities, which are covered by other tools like search_kpis and search_municipalities.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: to search for organizational units with filtering options. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives, though the sibling tools suggest alternatives for KPI or municipality searches.

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