Шукати районні ради України за назвою.
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": {
"query": "<query>"
},
"name": "search_district_councils"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes | ||
| region | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations and no output schema, so the description carries the full burden, yet it discloses nothing about matching semantics (substring vs fuzzy), result ordering, pagination, or empty-result behavior. Only the implicit read-only nature of 'search' gives any signal.
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?
A single short sentence, front-loaded with verb and resource and free of filler. Its brevity is appropriate in form, though it is under-specification rather than true conciseness.
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 3-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too thin. It omits the two optional filters, result shape, and pagination behavior that an agent needs to invoke it correctly.
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%, so all three parameters (query, limit, region) are undocumented in structured fields. The description only accounts for 'by name' (query) and says nothing about the limit default of 20 or how region filters results.
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: searching Ukrainian district councils by name. It is clear what the tool returns, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the closely named siblings list_district_councils and get_district_council.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus list_district_councils (enumeration) or get_district_council (single lookup). The agent must infer that 'search by name' implies a text query, but no exclusions or alternatives are named.
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.