Polish Academic MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: the tool returns 'raw XML', explains the two metadata formats (oai_dc vs jats) and their trade-offs, and mentions pagination via 'resumption_token'. However, it doesn't cover rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling, which would be helpful for a harvesting tool.

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 efficiently structured in three sentences: first clarifies purpose and distinction from sibling, second explains usage scenarios, third details output format and metadata options. Every sentence earns its place with zero waste, and key information is front-loaded.

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 harvesting tool with 6 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, usage guidelines, output format (raw XML), and metadata options. However, without annotations, it could benefit from mentioning rate limits or authentication requirements, which are common for API-based harvesting tools.

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 documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it mentions 'optional date range' and 'OAI set (journal id from ListSets)', but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 tool performs an 'OAI-PMH ListRecords harvest for Biblioteka Nauki' and explicitly distinguishes it from 'full-text keyword search', naming the sibling tool 'bn_search_publications' for that purpose. It specifies the verb (harvest/list), resource (records), and scope (Biblioteka Nauki).

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 ('to list records by optional date range and/or OAI set, or to page with resumption_token') and when not to use it ('NOT full-text keyword search'), with a clear alternative named ('bn_search_publications'). It also clarifies the absence of a query string in OAI-PMH.

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