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 mentions optional filters but doesn't explain what happens when filters are applied (e.g., are they additive, how they affect performance), the return format (e.g., integer count, error handling), or any limitations (e.g., rate limits, permissions needed). For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 function without any fluff. It's front-loaded with the core purpose ('compte le nombre d'items') and includes key details (collection context, optional filters) concisely. Every word earns its place, making it easy 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 (counting with filters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., a numeric count, structured response), how errors are handled, or any behavioral constraints. For a tool that interacts with collections and supports filtering, more context is needed to use it effectively without trial and error.

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 already documents both parameters ('collection' and 'filters') adequately. The description adds minimal value by implying that filters are optional and used for counting, but doesn't provide additional context like filter syntax examples or how filters interact with the count. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 with a specific verb ('compte' = count) and resource ('items dans une collection'), making it immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_collection_items' (which likely retrieves items) by focusing on counting rather than listing. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential counting alternatives, keeping it from 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. With siblings like 'get_collection_items' and 'search_collection_items' that might also return counts or filtered results, there's no indication of when counting is preferred over retrieving items. No prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative context are mentioned.

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