Polish Academic MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it returns plain text extracted from HTML (strips markup), truncates for LLM context, and mentions copyright/database notice obligations. It doesn't specify error handling or rate limits, but covers the essential transformation behavior.

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?

Three tightly packed sentences with zero waste. Each sentence adds critical information: what the tool does, how it transforms the output, and legal considerations. Perfectly front-loaded with the core functionality.

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 single-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description is quite complete. It explains the transformation (HTML to plain text), truncation behavior, and legal context. Could potentially mention error cases or response format, but covers the essential context well given the tool's simplicity.

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 parameter. The description adds marginal value by mentioning the parameter comes 'from filmpolski_search links index.php/{id}', but doesn't provide additional semantic context beyond what's in the schema description.

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 ('fetch one FilmPolski.pl record'), resource ('by numeric id'), and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying it's for single-item retrieval versus the filmpolski_search tool for searching. It explicitly mentions the source URL pattern and output format.

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 clear context for when to use this tool ('by numeric id from filmpolski_search links'), implying it should be used after obtaining IDs from the search sibling. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternative tools beyond the implied filmpolski_search.

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