Register UZ MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns a download URL but does not cover critical aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or whether the URL is temporary or permanent. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely involves file access.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence and adds useful return value information in the second. Both sentences earn their place by clarifying the action and output, with zero wasted words.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (single parameter, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema (which likely covers the return URL), the description is reasonably complete. However, it lacks behavioral details like authentication or error handling, which are important for a download operation, preventing a perfect score.

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 100%, so the input schema already fully documents the 'id' parameter. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain where to find the 'prilohy array' or provide examples). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the specific action ('Get the download URL') and resource ('for a financial report attachment'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_financial_report_pdf_url (which likely returns a PDF URL rather than a general attachment URL). It avoids tautology by not just restating the tool name.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as get_financial_report_pdf_url or other attachment-related tools. It mentions the resource but does not specify prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual usage scenarios.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.