Polish Academic MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key traits: it returns a fixed JSON list (not dynamic), serves as a navigation aid (not a query), and has limitations (covers only specific periods and collections). However, it doesn't mention potential errors, response format details, or performance aspects like rate limits.

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 concise and well-structured. It uses three sentences: the first states the purpose, the second provides usage guidelines, and the third clarifies limitations. Each sentence adds essential information without redundancy, making it front-loaded and efficient.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (simple, no parameters) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is mostly complete. It explains the purpose, usage, and limitations. However, it doesn't detail the exact structure of the returned JSON list or error handling, which could be helpful for an agent.

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?

The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%. The description appropriately notes there are no inputs by not discussing parameters, which is sufficient. A baseline of 4 is applied since no parameters exist, and the description doesn't need to compensate for any gaps.

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's purpose: 'Returns a fixed JSON list of relative paths for the main medieval document series on dokumentyslaska.pl (menu „Dokumenty”: periods up to 1333).' It specifies the exact resource (medieval document series paths) and distinguishes it from sibling tools like dokumenty_slaska_get_page, which is used for different purposes.

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 versus alternatives. It states: 'Use dokumenty_slaska_get_page with indeks* paths for a table of contents and dokument* for the full running text for that period.' It also clarifies exclusions: 'This is not a database query — only a navigation aid; other collections (monasteries, chronicles, etc.) use different folders — discover paths from the homepage HTML.'

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