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 it's a creation operation, implying mutation, but lacks details on permissions, side effects, error handling, or response format. For a write tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, though it could be slightly more informative. There's no wasted verbiage, earning a high score for conciseness.

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 complexity of a creation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and siblings like 'batch_create_items', the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects, usage context, or output expectations, leaving gaps that could hinder an AI agent's ability to invoke it correctly.

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 'data') adequately. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Crée un nouvel item dans une collection' clearly states the action (creates) and target (new item in a collection), which is adequate. However, it doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'batch_create_items' or specify what an 'item' entails, making it somewhat vague. It avoids tautology by not just restating the tool name.

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 'batch_create_items' for multiple items and 'update_collection_item' for modifications, there's no indication of preferred contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions. This leaves the agent without usage direction.

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