projektyProjekty ze sekce Doporučujeme — novostavby a rekonstrukce, u kterých kancelář prodává více jednotek najednou.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "projekty"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
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 selection criteria only, not whether the operation is read-only, how results are ordered or paginated, or what the response contains. This goes little beyond describing the underlying data subset.
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?
A single compact sentence with no filler. The defining criteria—section, property type, and sales model—are all included without redundancy.
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?
For a parameterless collection tool, the description captures the main selection criteria and adequately singles out the intended data set. Minor gaps remain: it does not explicitly say that a list is returned and it gives no routing hints to related sibling tools, but these are not critical to invoking a zero-parameter endpoint.
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 input schema has zero properties and the schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters that need explanation. The baseline of 4 for parameterless tools applies.
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 identifies a specific resource: projects from the Doporučujeme section, limited to new builds and reconstructions sold in multiple units. This scope distinguishes it from detail_projektu and other sibling tools, though the action (listing/returning) is only implied by the plural name and title rather than stated with an explicit verb.
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 given on when to use this tool instead of alternatives like hledej_nemovitosti or detail_projektu. The description defines the data scope but does not mention exclusions, alternatives, or conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.