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 for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool searches and returns matching values, which implies read-only behavior, but doesn't mention error conditions, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens when no matches are found. The description is minimal and lacks important operational context.

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 concise with three sentences. The first sentence states the core functionality, the second describes the return behavior, and the third provides concrete examples. No wasted words, though it could be slightly more structured with clearer separation of concepts.

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 5 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description is incomplete. While an output schema exists (which helps with return values), the description doesn't adequately explain parameter usage or behavioral constraints. For a search tool with multiple filtering parameters, more guidance is needed about how parameters interact and what constitutes a valid search.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. The description mentions row/column labels and provides examples, but doesn't explain the purpose of 'id', 'row_code', or 'table_name' parameters. It only partially addresses 2 of the 5 parameters, leaving significant gaps in 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 tool searches for specific values in a financial report by matching row/column labels and returns matching values. It provides specific examples like 'Výsledok hospodárenia' and 'SPOLU MAJETOK' to illustrate usage. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_uctovny_vykaz' or 'get_uctovny_vykaz_with_labeled_tables'.

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 context ('useful for extracting specific metrics') and provides examples, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_uctovny_vykaz' (which might return full reports) or 'get_uctovny_vykaz_with_labeled_tables' (which might return structured tables). No explicit when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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