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 discloses the tool's behavioral trait of being a read-only operation for counting IDs, which is useful. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or the exact output format, leaving gaps in behavioral 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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence and adds a usage note in the second, with zero wasted words. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information efficiently.

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 (2 parameters, 1 required), 100% schema coverage, and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is largely complete. It covers purpose and usage well but could benefit from more behavioral details like error cases or performance notes, though the output schema mitigates this gap.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining the relationship between 'zmenene_od' and 'pokracovat_za_id' or providing examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 specific action ('Get count of remaining financial report IDs') and resource ('financial report IDs'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'get_uctovne_vykazy' (which likely lists reports) by focusing on pagination progress estimation. It avoids tautology by explaining functionality beyond the tool name.

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?

It explicitly states when to use this tool ('Useful for estimating pagination progress'), providing clear context for its application. While it doesn't name specific alternatives, the purpose inherently distinguishes it from sibling tools that retrieve actual data rather than counts.

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