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. It mentions the tool is 'useful for estimating pagination progress,' which hints at a read-only, non-destructive behavior, but doesn't explicitly state this. It lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error conditions, or what the output contains (though an output schema exists). For a tool with no annotations, this is insufficient behavioral disclosure.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded: two sentences that directly state the purpose and usage. Every word earns its place, with no redundant or vague language. It's appropriately sized for a simple counting tool.

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 (5 parameters, 1 required), 100% schema coverage, and the presence of an output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It covers the core purpose and a key usage scenario. However, it could be more complete by addressing behavioral aspects (since annotations are absent) or clarifying sibling tool relationships, which slightly limits its effectiveness.

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 thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain how 'pokracovat_za_id' relates to 'remaining IDs' or provide examples). With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description doesn't compensate with extra insights.

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 count of remaining accounting unit IDs after a given ID.' It specifies the verb ('Get count') and resource ('remaining accounting unit IDs'), and the sibling tool list shows similar 'get_zostavajuce_id_' tools for different entities, but the description doesn't explicitly differentiate this from those siblings (e.g., 'uctovne_jednotky' vs 'uctovne_vykazy'), which prevents a perfect score.

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 implied usage context: 'Useful for estimating pagination progress.' This suggests when to use the tool (for pagination estimation) but doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives. For example, it doesn't clarify if this should be used instead of or alongside the sibling 'get_uctovne_jednotky' tool for listing actual units.

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