Polish Academic MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It clearly indicates this is a read operation ('Retrieve'), which is helpful. However, it doesn't disclose other behavioral traits like error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'full metadata' includes. The description adds basic context but leaves significant behavioral aspects unspecified.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the core purpose with all essential elements. The second sentence provides crucial usage guidance and sibling relationship. Every word serves a clear purpose, and information is front-loaded appropriately.

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?

For a simple read operation with one well-documented parameter and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, usage context, and parameter source. The main gap is lack of information about return values (what 'full metadata' includes), which would be helpful given no output schema. However, for this complexity level, it's reasonably complete.

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 100%, so the schema already fully documents the single 'uuid' parameter. The description adds minimal value by mentioning UUIDs come from 'amu_search results', which provides context but doesn't add semantic details beyond what the schema provides. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 specific action ('Retrieve full metadata'), target resource ('a single item in the Adam Mickiewicz University Repository'), and method ('by its UUID'). It explicitly distinguishes from sibling 'amu_search' by mentioning UUIDs come from that tool's results, providing clear differentiation.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('for a single item by UUID') and when not to use it (implied: not for searching or multiple items). It names the alternative tool ('amu_search') and specifies the prerequisite relationship ('UUID is found in the 'uuid' field of amu_search results'), giving complete usage context.

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