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. It discloses that the tool returns detailed information including specific components (title page, tables, attachments), which adds behavioral context beyond a simple 'get' operation. However, it doesn't cover aspects like error handling, authentication needs, rate limits, or whether it's read-only (implied but not stated).

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: the first states the purpose and return content, and the second provides a usage tip. It's front-loaded with key information and avoids unnecessary details, though the second sentence could be more integrated for better flow.

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 has an output schema (which handles return values), no annotations, and high schema coverage, the description is reasonably complete. It covers the purpose, return content, and a usage guideline, addressing core needs. However, for a tool with no annotations, it could benefit from more behavioral details like read-only confirmation or error scenarios.

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 parameter 'id' documented as 'Financial report ID.' The description adds minimal value beyond this, only referencing 'idSablony' in a usage note, which isn't a parameter. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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 ('about a financial report'), specifying it returns report content including title page data, tables, and attachment information. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_financial_report_pdf_url' by focusing on detailed structured data rather than PDF output, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 implies usage by mentioning 'Use idSablony to get the template for interpreting tables,' which suggests a prerequisite or related tool, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_uctovny_vykaz_with_labeled_tables' or 'get_uctovne_vykazy' (which likely lists reports). No clear exclusions or when-not scenarios are provided.

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