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 action is 'Get,' implying a read-only operation, but does not specify aspects like data format, pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior beyond the basic purpose.

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 key information without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, though it could be slightly more informative without sacrificing conciseness.

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, 0% schema description coverage, and a single parameter, the description provides only basic purpose and parameter context. It is minimally adequate but lacks depth in behavioral and usage details, making it incomplete for optimal 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 description mentions 'by stock code,' which aligns with the single parameter 'code' in the input schema. However, with 0% schema description coverage, the schema provides no details about the parameter. The description adds minimal semantics by indicating the parameter is a stock code, but it does not explain format, validation, or examples, resulting in a baseline score due to the single parameter.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'comprehensive shareholder meeting announcements for a specific company by stock code,' making the purpose explicit. However, it does not differentiate from its sibling 'get_company_shareholder_meeting_announcements' (without '_by_code'), which might handle similar data but potentially with different parameters or scope, leaving some ambiguity.

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 other sibling tools for shareholder meetings or company data. It lacks explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions, offering only a basic usage scenario without comparative information.

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