460 posłów Sejmu RP. Filtry: klub, woj, limit, offset.
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_poslowie"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| woj | No | ||
| klub | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| offset | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful fact — the dataset is only 460 records — which tells the agent that limit/offset are rarely needed. It does not, however, describe the return shape, ordering, or filter-matching behavior, so this remains a modest contribution.
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?
Extremely short and front-loaded with no filler, but that brevity comes at the cost of under-specification: two fragments for a four-parameter tool whose schema documents nothing.
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?
No output schema, no annotations explaining data shape, 0% parameter documentation, and no sibling guidance — the description leaves most of what an agent needs (valid filter values, returned fields) undocumented.
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?
Four parameters with 0% schema description coverage, and the description only repeats the parameter names as a filter list. It does not explain what values 'klub' or 'woj' accept (name vs. code vs. abbreviation), nor the default/maximum for 'limit' or the semantics of 'offset'. No compensation for the coverage gap.
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 the resource precisely ('460 posłów Sejmu RP') and enumerates the filter dimensions, so an agent knows this returns a list of members of the Sejm. However, there is no verb (search/list/filter) and no explicit differentiation from the sibling get_posel, which returns a single MP; the distinction is only inferable from the tool name.
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 versus alternatives such as get_posel or search_kasta. The presence of filters implies a lookup use case, but no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions are stated.
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.