Lists addressed items and their current delivery status, optionally filtered by recipient and capped by a limit. Helps agents track leased work orders and delivery progress.
Adresované položky a jejich aktuální stav doručení.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| recipient | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses only that a delivery state is returned. It says nothing about whether it is a safe read, whether it is paginated, filtered by ownership, or what a job entry contains, leaving key traits unstated.
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?
It is a single short, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, which is structurally clean. The terseness here reflects under-specification rather than tight editing, so it does not merit a 4-5.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but this is one of 13 sibling tools in a job/queue domain and the description provides neither usage routing nor parameter meaning. For a tool competing with claim/release/ack/retry/inbox, the definition is not complete enough to call correctly with confidence.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain 'limit' and 'recipient' but does not mention either. The adjective 'adresované' loosely gestures at a recipient scope, but with no mapping to the recipient parameter or default/pagination semantics, the gap remains substantially unfilled.
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 Czech phrase 'Adresované položky a jejich aktuální stav doručení' identifies the resource (addressed items/jobs) and its content (current delivery status), so the agent can guess it returns job entries. However, there is no verb (list/get) and no differentiation from the many job-lifecycle siblings (claim, release, ack, retry, cancel, next_task), so it stays at minimum-viable.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance at all: nothing says whether this is the entry point for viewing jobs versus inbox/history/next_task, nor any preconditions. The agent must infer invocation context entirely from the sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.