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 full burden. It mentions the return content but does not disclose behavioral traits such as error handling (e.g., invalid ID), authentication needs, rate limits, or whether it's a read-only operation. The description adds minimal context beyond basic functionality.

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 concise and front-loaded, stating the purpose and return details in two sentences without unnecessary details. It efficiently communicates core information, though it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating usage context.

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 one parameter with full schema coverage and an output schema (implied by 'Has output schema: true'), the description is minimally complete. It covers basic purpose and return content but lacks usage guidelines and behavioral details, which are important for a tool in a context with many siblings and no annotations.

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%, with the parameter 'id' documented as 'Annual report ID'. The description does not add meaning beyond this, as it only implies an ID is needed without specifying format or source. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema adequately covers the single parameter.

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' and resource 'detailed information about an annual report', specifying what it returns (report details including type, periods, attachments, and references). It distinguishes from some siblings like 'get_vyrocne_spravy' (likely listing multiple reports) by focusing on a single report's details, though not explicitly contrasting all 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an ID from another call) or compare with siblings like 'get_vyrocne_spravy' for listing reports or 'get_financial_report_pdf_url' for PDF access, leaving usage context unclear.

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