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 adds valuable behavioral context: it discloses the return limit ('Returns up to max_zaznamov IDs (default 1000, max 10000)'), pagination mechanism, and the condition for pagination ('when existujeDalsieId is true'). It does not cover aspects like error handling or authentication needs, but provides key operational details.

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 and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by concise details on limits and pagination. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 complexity (list retrieval with pagination), no annotations, and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is complete enough. It covers purpose, usage guidelines, key behavioral traits (limits, pagination), and references the output schema condition ('existujeDalsieId'), providing all necessary context for an agent to use the tool effectively.

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 fully. The description mentions 'max_zaznamov' and 'pokracovat_za_id' in context, but adds no new semantic details beyond what the schema provides (e.g., default values and constraints are already in schema). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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: 'Get list of annual report IDs changed since a given date.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('annual report IDs'), and scope ('changed since a given date'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'get_vyrocna_sprava' (singular) or other unrelated tools.

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 clear context for usage: it explains when to use pagination ('Use pokracovat_za_id for pagination when existujeDalsieId is true'). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternatives among siblings, such as 'get_vyrocna_sprava' for detailed reports.

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