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 retrieving with relations via 'populate', which adds some context, but fails to address critical aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, error handling for invalid IDs, authentication requirements, or rate limits. For a retrieval tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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 that front-loads the core purpose. It avoids unnecessary words, though it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating the main retrieval action from the optional 'populate' feature for better clarity.

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 retrieval tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., item data structure, error responses), nor does it cover behavioral aspects like idempotency or side effects. This is inadequate for guiding an agent effectively in a multi-tool 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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the parameters are fully documented in the schema itself. The description adds minimal value by hinting at the 'populate' parameter's purpose ('avec ses relations'), but doesn't provide additional syntax, format details, or examples beyond what the schema already states. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 verb ('Récupère' meaning 'Retrieves') and resource ('un item spécifique par son ID' meaning 'a specific item by its ID'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_collection_item' vs 'get_collection_items' or 'get_collection', leaving some ambiguity about when to use this specific retrieval tool.

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' (likely for listing multiple items) and 'get_collection' (possibly for collection metadata), there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions for this single-item retrieval tool.

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