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 describes what data is returned (settlements with codes and parent district references) but doesn't mention critical behaviors like whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, rate limits, pagination, or error handling. For a data retrieval tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the core functionality without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the main purpose and includes essential details about the data structure. Every part of the sentence earns its place.

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 that the tool has no parameters, an output schema exists, and annotations are absent, the description is moderately complete. It explains what data is returned but lacks behavioral context (e.g., read-only nature, authentication needs). The output schema likely covers return values, so the description doesn't need to detail them, but it should address other operational aspects.

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 with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist, and it adds value by explaining what data will be returned (settlements with codes and parent district references), which complements the output 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get list of Slovak settlements (sídla) with their codes.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('Slovak settlements'), and key attributes ('codes' and 'reference to parent district'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_kraje' or 'get_okresy' which likely return different geographic entities.

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. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_kraje' (regions) or 'get_okresy' (districts), nor does it explain the relationship between settlements and these other geographic entities. Usage is implied but not explicitly stated.

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