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 full burden. It mentions the tool 'gets' information, implying a read operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'detailed information' includes beyond structure. This is inadequate for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by a usage hint. It avoids redundancy and is efficiently structured, though the second sentence could be slightly more specific to enhance clarity without adding bulk.

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 has an output schema (which likely defines return values), a single parameter with full schema coverage, and no annotations, the description is reasonably complete. It covers the purpose and basic usage, but could improve by addressing behavioral aspects like permissions or data format, given the lack of annotations.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the parameter 'id' documented as 'Template ID'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema fully covers the parameter.

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' and resource 'detailed information about a financial report template', explaining that templates define report structure. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_sablony' (likely listing templates) by focusing on detailed info for a specific template, though not explicitly naming alternatives.

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 by stating 'Use this to interpret the data in financial reports', suggesting it's for understanding report structure. However, it doesn't explicitly say when to use this vs. other template-related tools (e.g., 'get_sablony' for listing templates) or provide exclusions, leaving some ambiguity.

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