CKAN MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool selects a CKAN portal but doesn't explain what this means operationally—e.g., whether it persists across sessions, affects other tools, or has side effects like authentication requirements. The description is too vague for a mutation-like tool (setting session 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 a single, clear sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and efficiently communicates the core function, making it easy for an 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 complexity (5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the tool's role in the CKAN workflow, how it interacts with siblings, or what happens after selection (e.g., error handling or session persistence). For a session-initialization tool, more context is needed to guide proper 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%, so the schema fully documents all 5 parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying the tool configures a session. This meets the baseline of 3, as the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't enhance understanding of how parameters interact or affect tool behavior.

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: 'Select which CKAN portal this MCP session should use.' It specifies the verb ('Select') and resource ('CKAN portal'), making the action clear. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'ckan_api_availability' or 'audit_ckan_api', which prevents a perfect score.

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 prerequisites (e.g., whether it must be called before other CKAN tools), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'ckan_api_availability'. This lack of contextual guidance leaves the agent to infer usage.

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