TWSE 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 states the tool retrieves 'comprehensive' announcements 'with all available information', which implies a read-only, non-destructive operation, but lacks details on output format, pagination, rate limits, or error handling. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves in practice.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get comprehensive shareholder meeting announcements') and adds a clarifying temporal scope. There is no wasted verbiage, making it appropriately sized and well-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 has 0 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema exists, the description is adequate but minimal. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., data freshness, limitations) and does not differentiate from sibling tools, which could lead to confusion. For a tool with no parameters, more context on usage and output expectations would improve completeness.

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 adds value by implying a temporal filter ('since 2008'), which may be a default or implicit parameter, but does not clarify if this is adjustable or fixed. This slight ambiguity prevents a perfect score.

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 ('Get') and resource ('comprehensive shareholder meeting announcements') with a temporal scope ('since 2008'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from its sibling tool 'get_company_shareholder_meeting_announcements_by_code', which likely filters by company code, leaving some ambiguity about when to use each.

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 the sibling tool 'get_company_shareholder_meeting_announcements_by_code'. It mentions a temporal scope ('since 2008') but does not specify if this is a default, required, or optional filter, nor does it indicate any prerequisites or exclusions for usage.

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