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: returns raw HTML with poster thumbnails and links, uses a non-JSON API (GET form), and requires parsing numeric IDs from results for use with gapla_get_poster. This covers output format, API type, and integration details, though it lacks information on rate limits or error handling.

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 states the purpose and scope, second explains the API format and output, third details parameter enums and integration. Every sentence adds essential information with zero waste, making it front-loaded and appropriately sized.

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 by explaining the raw HTML output, API constraints, and integration with gapla_get_poster. It covers the tool's complexity adequately, though it could mention pagination behavior or error cases for a more complete picture.

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 fully documents all parameters. The description adds minimal value by briefly explaining the 'typ' and 'sort' enums in Polish terms, but doesn't provide additional semantics beyond what the schema already specifies. 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 tool searches the Gapla film poster gallery, specifying it covers Polish and international film posters and festival materials. It distinguishes from sibling tools by mentioning the specific gallery (Filmoteka Narodowa) and referencing gapla_get_poster as a related tool, making the purpose specific and differentiated.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool (searching the Gapla gallery) and when to use an alternative (gapla_get_poster for retrieving specific posters by ID). It also mentions the tool uses the same GET form as the website, providing clear context for its operation.

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