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 mentions the tool returns detailed information but does not cover aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or whether it's a read-only operation (implied by 'Get' but not explicit). This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotation support.

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 purpose and return details without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the main action and includes specific examples of returned data, making it easy to parse.

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 complexity (simple read operation with one parameter), 100% schema coverage, and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is reasonably complete. It covers what the tool does and what it returns, though it could benefit from more behavioral context due to 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 schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'id' documented as 'Accounting unit ID'. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond this, such as format examples or constraints. Since the schema fully covers the parameter, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 detailed information') and resource ('accounting unit'), specifying it returns company details like name, IČO, DIČ, address, legal form, and references to financial documents. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools (e.g., get_uctovne_jednotky might be similar), which prevents a perfect score.

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 sibling tools like get_uctovne_jednotky or get_uctovna_zavierka. It lacks context on prerequisites, exclusions, or specific scenarios, leaving the agent to infer usage from the purpose alone.

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