TWSE MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'obtain' which implies a read operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like data format, potential errors (e.g., invalid code), rate limits, or authentication needs. This is inadequate for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently conveys the essential information, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 1 parameter, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and an output schema exists, the description is minimally complete. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on usage, behavior, and parameter specifics, which are needed for effective tool invocation despite the output schema.

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 description adds minimal meaning beyond the input schema. It specifies the parameter 'code' is a stock code, but with 0% schema description coverage and 1 parameter, this provides basic context. However, it doesn't detail format (e.g., ticker symbol, exchange code) or examples, so it only partially compensates.

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 action ('obtain') and resource ('board information for a listed company'), specifying it's based on stock code. It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_company_board_shareholdings' or 'get_company_governance_info', which might provide overlapping or related data, so it lacks explicit distinction.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools (e.g., 'get_company_board_shareholdings', 'get_company_governance_info'), the description doesn't specify if this is for general board info, specific aspects, or how it differs, leaving usage unclear.

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