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 states it 'gets' data, implying a read operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, response format, or whether it returns all codes or supports filtering. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 concise sentences with zero waste. The first sentence directly states the tool's purpose, and the second provides essential context about SK NACE. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded.

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 0 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema exists, the description is moderately complete. It explains what SK NACE is, which helps interpret results. However, with no annotations and a read operation, it should ideally mention response characteristics or usage constraints, but the output schema mitigates this gap.

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%. With no parameters to document, the description doesn't need to add parameter semantics. It appropriately explains what SK NACE is, which provides context for the tool's output. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4.

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 SK NACE classification codes' with the verb 'Get' and resource 'SK NACE classification codes'. It distinguishes the tool by specifying it's for Slovak economic activity classification, which differentiates it from siblings like get_kraje or get_okresy. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other classification tools (none in siblings), so it's not a perfect 5.

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 any prerequisites, context for usage, or comparisons to other tools. While siblings include various get_* tools for different data types, there's no explicit when/when-not advice.

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