Отримати районну раду за ЄДРПОУ або кодом КАТОТТГ району.
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": {
"identifier": "<identifier>"
},
"name": "get_district_council"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| identifier | 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, and it discloses almost nothing beyond the read implication of "Отримати". It does not say whether a missing council returns an error or empty result, what auth or rate limits apply, or what fields come back.
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?
One short sentence with the action first and the accepted identifier forms immediately after — zero padding and appropriately front-loaded.
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 single-parameter lookup with no annotations and no output schema, the definition leaves the caller guessing about the return payload and failure modes. The identifier semantics are covered, but the result and error contract are entirely absent.
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% and the single "identifier" property is completely undocumented in the schema, so the description must compensate. It does add real value by enumerating the two accepted identifier systems (ЄДРПОУ and КАТОТТГ district code), but it gives no format examples, length, or validation rules for either.
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?
"Отримати районну раду" states a specific verb+resource with precision (get a district council), and the sentence names the two accepted identifier systems. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling lookup tools (search_district_councils, list_district_councils), so a 4 rather than a 5.
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 only implied: the mention of ЄДРПОУ / КАТОТТГ codes signals an exact-key lookup rather than a text search, which is enough to steer an agent away from search_district_councils. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no stated behavior when the identifier is unknown, and no mention of the list_/search_ alternatives.
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.