Register UZ MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: default and maximum return limits (1000/10000), pagination mechanism, and the conditional nature of pagination. It doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions, but covers the essential operational behavior.

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 perfectly front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by essential behavioral details. Every sentence earns its place: first states purpose, second covers limits, third explains pagination. No wasted words or redundant information.

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 this is a read-only list operation with full schema coverage and an output schema (implied by context signals), the description provides complete context. It covers purpose, usage, key behavioral constraints, and pagination - everything needed to understand when and how to use this tool effectively.

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 fully documents all three parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema - it mentions max_zaznamov defaults and limits, but doesn't provide additional context about parameter interactions or usage patterns. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 specific action ('Get list of financial report IDs') and resource ('financial report IDs'), and distinguishes this tool from siblings by specifying it returns IDs changed since a date rather than full reports or other data. It provides precise scope that differentiates it from tools like get_uctovny_vykaz or get_uctovne_jednotky.

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 explicitly provides when-to-use guidance: 'changed since a given date' establishes the primary use case, and it specifies pagination conditions ('when existujeDalsieId is true'). It also distinguishes from siblings by focusing on ID retrieval rather than full content, though it doesn't name specific alternatives.

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