Skema MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool creates items but doesn't describe what 'create' entails (e.g., whether it's a write operation, requires permissions, has side effects like overwriting existing items, or returns specific outputs). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral traits unspecified.

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 in French that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, with every part contributing to understanding the batch creation functionality. No fluff or redundancy is present.

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 (a batch mutation with 2 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like error handling, response format, or usage context, leaving gaps that could hinder an agent's ability to invoke it correctly. More detail is needed for a mutation tool in this environment.

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?

The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides. With 100% schema description coverage, both parameters ('collection' and 'items') are documented in the schema, setting a baseline of 3. The description doesn't elaborate on parameter meanings, constraints, or examples (e.g., format of 'items' array), so it doesn't compensate but doesn't detract either.

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 action ('Crée plusieurs items') and scope ('en une seule requête'), which translates to 'Creates multiple items in a single request'. This specifies the verb (create) and resource (items) with the batch operation context. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_collection_item' (singular creation) or 'batch_update_items' (batch updates).

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., needing an existing collection), compare it to 'create_collection_item' for single-item creation, or specify scenarios where batch creation is preferred (e.g., efficiency for multiple items). Without such context, the agent lacks direction on tool selection.

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