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 mentions the tool is 'useful for estimating pagination progress,' which implies read-only behavior and a counting function, but doesn't detail aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or what the output looks like. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operational 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a usage note. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff. It's efficiently structured for quick comprehension.

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 reasonably complete. It covers purpose and usage context adequately. However, without annotations, it could benefit from more behavioral details (e.g., performance or limits), but the output schema reduces the need for extensive description.

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 input schema already documents both parameters (zmenene_od and pokracovat_za_id) with descriptions. The description adds value by explaining the overall purpose ('count of remaining annual report IDs after a given ID'), which provides context for parameter usage, but doesn't add specific semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema coverage is high.

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 annual report IDs after a given ID.' It specifies the verb ('Get count'), resource ('remaining annual report IDs'), and scope ('after a given ID'), which distinguishes it from siblings like get_vyrocne_spravy (likely fetching reports). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar tools like get_zostavajuce_id_uctovne_jednotky, which suggests a pattern but not a direct comparison.

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: 'Useful for estimating pagination progress.' This implies when to use the tool—for pagination tracking—and hints at its role in workflows involving sequential ID retrieval. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is sufficient for typical usage scenarios.

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