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 'closure details including periods, dates, type, and references to financial reports,' which adds some context about output. However, it lacks critical behavioral details such as whether this is a read-only operation, error handling (e.g., for invalid IDs), authentication requirements, or rate limits. For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap.

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 appropriately sized with two sentences that are front-loaded: the first states the purpose, and the second details the return information. There is no wasted text, and it efficiently conveys core information. A minor deduction for not structuring usage hints more explicitly.

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 low complexity (1 required parameter), 100% schema coverage, and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the purpose and output details adequately. However, it could improve by adding behavioral context (e.g., read-only nature) to compensate for 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 'id' parameter documented as 'Accounting closure ID.' The description does not add any meaning beyond this, as it doesn't explain parameter usage, constraints, or examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline score is 3, reflecting adequate but no extra value from the description.

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 detailed information about an accounting closure (financial statement).' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('accounting closure'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_uctovne_zavierky' (plural) by focusing on a single closure. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other financial tools like 'get_uctovny_vykaz' (accounting statement), making it slightly less specific.

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 prerequisites (e.g., needing a closure ID), exclusions, or compare it to sibling tools like 'get_uctovne_zavierky' (which might list closures) or 'get_financial_report_pdf_url' (which might retrieve reports). Usage is implied from the description 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.