Get Polish administrative unit by BDL ID
Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {
"unit_id": "<unit_id>"
},
"name": "get_unit"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| unit_id | Yes |
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 behavioral burden. 'Get' implies a read operation, but the description does not disclose error behavior for invalid IDs, return format, permissions, or any other operational traits.
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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. For a simple one-parameter lookup tool, this is appropriately concise.
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 simple retrieval tool, the description covers the core action and identifier type. Still, with no annotations and no output schema, it leaves some gaps around invalid-ID behavior and what exactly is returned.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the single required parameter. It does identify the parameter's meaning as a BDL ID, but it does not explain the ID format, valid range, or expected string shape.
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 has a specific verb and resource: 'Get Polish administrative unit', and adds identifier scope 'by BDL ID'. It is clear enough to distinguish a single-unit lookup from list-style siblings, though it does not explicitly name or contrast with list_units.
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?
Usage is implied: call this when you have a BDL ID and need the corresponding administrative unit. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this instead of list_units or get_statistics, nor does it state any prerequisites or exclusions.
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.