polish-data-protection-mcp

pl_dp_get_decision

Looking for a specific UODO decision? Retrieve it by its reference number to access Polish data protection rulings.

Instructions

Get a specific UODO decision by reference number (e.g., 'ZSPR.421.1.2019', 'DKN.5112.1.2019').

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "reference": "<reference>"
    },
    "name": "pl_dp_get_decision"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`reference`	Yes	UODO decision reference (e.g., 'ZSPR.421.1.2019', 'DKN.5112.1.2019')

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 2, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the reference format but not error behavior, return structure, or any other operational details. For a simple read operation, this is adequate but not rich.

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?

A single, focused sentence with examples. No wasted words; it earns its place.

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?

The tool has one parameter and no output schema. The description gives all necessary information about what the parameter is and its format. It doesn't explain the return value, but the rules state that is unnecessary without an output schema.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, and both the tool description and schema provide the same examples. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the action ('Get'), the resource ('UODO decision'), and the identifier ('by reference number') with concrete examples. This distinguishes it from the sibling search tool, which is for querying.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description implies the use case: when you already have a specific reference number, use this tool. It doesn't explicitly contrast with search_decisions, but the 'specific' wording and reference examples provide clear context.

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

Deploy Server