TWSE MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states what the tool does without details on output format, data freshness, rate limits, or authentication needs. This lack of information makes it insufficient for a tool that likely returns sensitive or complex data.

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 a single, clear sentence with no unnecessary words, making it highly concise and front-loaded. It efficiently conveys the core purpose without redundancy or structural issues.

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 has an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values. However, with no annotations and a potentially complex domain (business scope changes), the description lacks context on data scope, limitations, or behavioral aspects, making it minimally adequate but incomplete for full agent understanding.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description does not add parameter details, which is acceptable given the schema's completeness, but it could have clarified any implicit filters (e.g., time range). Baseline is 3, but since no parameters exist, a score of 4 reflects that the description adequately addresses the lack of inputs.

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 'Get companies with major changes in business scope' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('companies with major changes in business scope'), making the purpose understandable. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_companies_ownership_changes_business_scope', leaving ambiguity about what distinguishes 'major changes' from other business scope-related queries.

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, such as sibling tools that also involve business scope changes. There is no mention of specific contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without clear usage instructions.

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