Register UZ MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the tool's process ('Fetches both the report and its template, then combines them') and output benefit ('labeled data'), but lacks critical details like whether this is a read-only operation, potential performance impacts (e.g., slower due to combining data), error handling, or authentication needs. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its 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 efficiently structured in two sentences: the first states the purpose and process, and the second explains the benefit. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it front-loaded and easy to parse quickly.

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 (involving fetching and combining data), no annotations, and an output schema (which handles return values), the description is reasonably complete. It explains the core functionality and output format well, but could improve by addressing behavioral aspects like performance or errors, and clarifying the parameter. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to detail return values.

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 1 parameter ('id') with 0% description coverage, meaning the schema provides no semantic context. The description does not mention the 'id' parameter at all, failing to compensate for the coverage gap. However, with only one parameter, the baseline is slightly higher than minimal, but the description adds no value beyond what's inferred from the tool name (e.g., 'id' likely refers to a report ID).

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 financial report with labeled tables'), the resource ('financial report'), and the key differentiator ('labeled tables' with row/column labels). It explicitly distinguishes this from manual cross-referencing, making its purpose distinct from siblings like 'get_uctovny_vykaz' (which likely lacks labeling).

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 it 'makes it easy to understand what each value represents without manually cross-referencing the template,' suggesting it's preferable for human-readable output. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'get_uctovny_vykaz' for raw data or 'get_uctovny_vykaz_table_value_by_labels' for specific values), nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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