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. It mentions the data format (WordPress REST JSON) but lacks critical behavioral details: it does not specify if this is a read-only operation, potential error conditions (e.g., invalid page_id), rate limits, authentication needs, or what the output looks like. The description is minimal and leaves key operational aspects unclear.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, and every part (fetch, static page, source, format, endpoint) contributes essential information without redundancy.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not cover behavioral aspects like safety (read-only vs. mutation), error handling, or output structure, which are crucial for a tool with no structured metadata. While concise, it fails to provide sufficient context for reliable agent use.

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%, with the parameter 'page_id' documented as 'Numeric page id from nac_site_search'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. However, with high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the schema adequately describes the single parameter.

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 action ('Fetch'), the resource ('a single static page'), the source ('from nac.gov.pl'), and the format ('as WordPress REST JSON'). It also distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying the exact API endpoint ('/wp/v2/pages/{id}'), making it distinct from generic search or other page-fetching tools in the list.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a page_id from nac_site_search, which is only implied by the parameter description), nor does it differentiate from similar tools like nac_get_post or other get_item tools in the sibling list.

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