Mapa rządu. Filtry: role_type, entity, limit.
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": "search_administracja"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| entity | No | ||
| role_type | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds nothing beyond the filter names — no indication of result shape, whether results are exhaustive, or how the "map" relates to the filters.
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?
It is short and front-loaded, but the brevity is under-specification rather than efficiency — two fragments that consume minimal space while conveying almost nothing actionable.
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 3-parameter search tool with no output schema and no parameter documentation anywhere, the description is far too thin. It neither compensates for the empty schema nor explains what a caller gets back.
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 0%, so the description carries the full burden, yet it only restates the three property names with no meaning. An agent cannot tell what role_type accepts, whether entity is a name or ID, or what limit defaults to.
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?
"Mapa rządu" (government map) is a metaphor that never states the actual operation — searching administration entities — nor what is returned. It does not distinguish this tool from siblings like search_poslowie, search_kasta, or get_manifest, all of which are also lookups over political/governmental data.
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 on when to use this tool versus the many sibling search/get tools, and no mention of prerequisites or scope. The only hint is the list of filter names, which the agent must infer is the intended usage.
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.