Список підтверджених місцевих рад України з пагінацією.
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": "list_local_councils"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| offset | No |
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. It only mentions pagination and that councils are 'confirmed'; it does not disclose read-only behavior, authentication needs, rate limits, or how pagination behaves.
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 redundant or wasted text. It is appropriately concise for the amount of information it chooses to convey.
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 list tool with two undocumented parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not explain pagination behavior, what 'confirmed' means, or how the tool relates to search and get siblings.
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 description only says 'with pagination' without explaining limit, offset, defaults, or maximum values. The two parameters remain semantically undocumented beyond their names in the schema.
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 states a specific verb and resource: listing confirmed local councils of Ukraine, with pagination. It is clearly a list operation, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools such as search_local_councils or list_district_councils.
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?
It gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_local_councils or get_local_council. The mention of pagination implies a listing use case, but there are no conditions, exclusions, or sibling references.
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.