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 and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it specifies pagination logic, default and maximum return limits (1000 default, 10000 max), and the condition for using pagination (when existujeDalsieId is true). It could improve by mentioning rate limits or authentication needs, but covers core operational behavior effectively.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by essential operational details in two concise sentences. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the tool, the second covers pagination and limits without any wasted words.

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 moderate complexity, 100% schema coverage, and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage, pagination, and limits, leaving no gaps for the agent to understand how to invoke it correctly.

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 some context by linking pokracovat_za_id to pagination and explaining max_zaznamov defaults, but doesn't provide significant additional meaning beyond the schema. 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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get list'), resource ('accounting closure IDs'), and scope ('changed since a given date'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get_uctovna_zavierka' (singular) by specifying it returns a list of IDs rather than a single closure.

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 explicit usage guidance: it specifies when to use pagination ('Use pokracovat_za_id for pagination when existujeDalsieId is true'), includes default and maximum values for max_zaznamov, and implies this is for retrieving changed IDs rather than all IDs or other data types, differentiating it from siblings like get_uctovne_jednotky.

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