Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
polish-data-protection-mcp

polish-data-protection-mcp

by Ansvar-Systems
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

pl_dp_about

Get server metadata: version, data source, coverage, and tools. Understand the scope of Polish data protection data available through this MCP server.

Instructions

Return metadata about this MCP server: version, data source, coverage, and tool list.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "pl_dp_about"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clarifies that the tool returns metadata, which implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state that no side effects occur, nor does it describe any special behavior (e.g., caching, authentication). This is sufficient for a simple metadata tool but lacks depth.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence that front-loads the action ('Return metadata') and concisely enumerates the specific metadata fields. No wasteful words or redundant information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a zero-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description adequately lists the return content (version, data source, coverage, tool list). It does not detail the format or structure, but the context is simple enough that this is a minor gap.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters and an empty input schema, so the schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description needs to add no parameter semantics, and the baseline of 4 applies since there are no parameters to explain.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description explicitly states 'Return metadata about this MCP server' with a clear list of content (version, data source, coverage, tool list). It uses a specific verb and resource, and clearly distinguishes from sibling tools that search decisions, guidelines, or list topics.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage context is implied by the tool's nature—an 'about' endpoint—but there is no explicit statement of when to use it or how it differs from siblings. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned, so it falls between clear context and merely implied usage.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools