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 scrapes HTML (no official JSON API), returns compact JSON with IDs for follow-up queries, and requires respecting site terms (short excerpts, citation). However, it lacks details on rate limits, error handling, or response structure, which would be helpful for a scraping 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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by implementation details and usage notes. Every sentence adds value: HTML parsing, match_mode specifics, and site terms. It is compact with zero wasted words, efficiently covering essential information in three concise statements.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description does well to cover the scraping nature, match modes, and legal terms. However, for a tool that parses HTML into JSON, more details on the output structure (e.g., fields returned, pagination) would enhance completeness. It adequately informs usage but leaves some behavioral aspects implicit.

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 both parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it reiterates match_mode options and provides an example for exact mode ('Surname, Firstname'), but does not explain parameter interactions or search semantics in depth. Baseline 3 is appropriate as 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 explicitly states the tool searches FilmPolski.pl (Polish Film Database) for films, TV, theatre, and people/institutions. It specifies the verb 'search' and resource 'FilmPolski.pl', distinguishing it from sibling 'filmpolski_get_item' which retrieves individual items. The mention of HTML parsing into JSON further clarifies the operation.

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: for searching the Polish Film Database. It implicitly distinguishes from 'filmpolski_get_item' by noting that results include 'ids for filmpolski_get_item', but does not explicitly state when to choose one over the other or mention other search alternatives among siblings. The match_mode details offer usage guidance within the tool.

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