What a quote of a Luxembourg state needs, one bounded page at a time (at most 50 articles and 96 KiB of text; page or article chooses the page, contents adds the table of contents): each article's text with its digests, the state's permalink, digests, sources and official identities, composed under the rights rule; for an EU act, the same for the wording of the date.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| date | Yes | ||
| page | No | ||
| article | No | ||
| contents | No | ||
| language | No | ||
| identifier | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but does disclose meaningful behavior: pagination limits ('at most 50 articles and 96 KiB of text'), how page/article/contents affect the request, and that output is composed 'under the rights rule'. It does not mention permissions, read-only nature, or error behavior.
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 one dense, run-on sentence with nested parentheses and semicolons, making it hard to parse. It is not front-loaded with a clear action, and the structure obscures rather than organizes the constraints.
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 6-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It describes output contents and pagination bounds but omits the meaning of required parameters identifier and date, language behavior, and usage alternatives.
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% across 6 parameters, and the description only partially compensates: it explains that 'page or article chooses the page' and that 'contents adds the table of contents'. It leaves identifier, date, and language undocumented, including the required identifier and date.
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 indicates this tool assembles an evidence bundle for quoting a Luxembourg state, listing article text, digests, permalink, sources, and identities. However, it never states a clear action verb (e.g., 'retrieve' or 'compose') and does not distinguish the tool from siblings such as citation, provenance, or verify.
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 phrase 'What a quote ... needs' hints at a use case, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, when not to use it, or any prerequisites. It also does not route the agent to a sibling tool for different needs.
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.