Register UZ MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It describes a read-only list operation, but lacks details on behavioral traits such as pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling. It adds basic context about data structure but is minimal for a tool with output schema.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the purpose and key details (list, Slovak districts, codes, parent region reference). There is no wasted text, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 simplicity (0 parameters, output schema exists), the description is reasonably complete. It specifies the data type and structure, and with an output schema, return values need not be explained. However, it could benefit from more behavioral context, such as data freshness or usage examples.

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?

The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description does not add param info, which is appropriate, earning a baseline score of 4 for zero-param tools where schema fully covers inputs.

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 verb ('Get list') and resource ('Slovak districts (okresy)'), specifying the data includes codes and parent region references. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_kraje' (regions) by focusing on districts, providing specific scope.

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 implies usage for retrieving district-level data, but offers no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'get_kraje' for regions or other data tools. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving usage context inferred rather than stated.

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