Skema MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the basic function without disclosing behavioral traits like pagination behavior (implied by 'page' and 'perPage' parameters but not explained), rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens on no matches. It mentions 'textuelle' search but doesn't detail search algorithms or case-sensitivity.

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 ('Recherche textuelle dans une collection') that is front-loaded and wastes no words. However, it's slightly under-specified given the tool's complexity, but it earns its place by stating the core purpose concisely.

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 has 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values, error conditions, or how results are structured (e.g., paginated list). For a search tool with multiple parameters and siblings, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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 5 parameters with descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying text search relates to the 'query' parameter. Baseline is 3 as the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't compensate with extra context like examples of query syntax or field usage.

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 'Recherche textuelle dans une collection' (Text search in a collection) clearly states the action (search) and target (collection items), but it's vague about scope and doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'get_collection_items' or 'count_collection_items'. It lacks specificity about what 'textuelle' entails beyond the basic verb+resource.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get_collection_items' (which might retrieve all items without search) or 'count_collection_items' (which might count based on criteria). The description implies usage for text search but doesn't specify contexts, exclusions, or named alternatives.

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