Register UZ MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behaviors: the tool returns IDs (not full records), has pagination support, and includes default/max limits ('Returns up to max_zaznamov IDs (default 1000, max 10000)'). It also hints at a response structure with 'existujeDalsieId' for pagination control. However, it doesn't mention error conditions, rate limits, or authentication requirements.

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 concise and well-structured in three sentences: purpose, limits, and pagination guidance. Each sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently covers key operational details.

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 (6 parameters, pagination, filtering) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose, limits, and pagination mechanics. However, it could better address sibling tool differentiation and provide more explicit usage scenarios. With no annotations, it does a solid job but has minor gaps.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it mentions 'max_zaznamov' defaults and limits, and explains 'pokracovat_za_id' for pagination. However, it doesn't provide additional context for parameters like 'zmenene_od' or filtering parameters (ico, dic, pravna_forma). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 accounting unit IDs changed since a given date. Use this to discover entities that have been modified.' This specifies the verb ('get list'), resource ('accounting unit IDs'), and scope ('changed since a given date'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_uctovna_jednotka' (singular vs. plural), which might cause confusion about when to use each.

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 some usage context: 'Use this to discover entities that have been modified' and mentions pagination with 'pokracovat_za_id' when 'existujeDalsieId is true.' However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'get_uctovna_jednotka' for a single unit or other filtering tools). The guidance is implied rather than clearly stated.

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