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. It mentions behavioral traits like pagination, sorting, filtering, and populating relations, which adds value beyond a basic list operation. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or response format, which are critical for a tool with multiple parameters and no output schema.

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 concise and front-loaded in a single sentence, efficiently listing key features without unnecessary words. Every part ('pagination, tri, filtres et populate') earns its place by highlighting capabilities. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating core purpose from features.

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 (6 parameters, nested objects, no output schema) and no annotations, the description is moderately complete. It covers the main functionality but lacks details on behavioral aspects like response format, error cases, or usage constraints. With no output schema, more guidance on return values would improve completeness.

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 all 6 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by listing features like pagination, sorting, filters, and populate, but doesn't provide additional semantics beyond what the schema descriptions specify. Baseline 3 is appropriate as 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 verb 'Liste' (List) and resource 'items d'une collection' (items of a collection), making the purpose specific. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_collection_item' (singular) and 'count_collection_items' by implying multiple items with pagination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'search_collection_items', which might have overlapping functionality.

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 implies usage for listing items with features like pagination, sorting, and filtering, suggesting it's for retrieving multiple items rather than single items or counts. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_collection_items' or 'get_collection_item', leaving some ambiguity in context.

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