Polish Academic MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the output format ('raw XML') and source characteristics ('aktualności, WordPress'), but doesn't mention potential rate limits, authentication requirements, or error behaviors. It provides basic operational context but lacks comprehensive behavioral details.

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?

Two tightly packed sentences with zero waste. First sentence states purpose and output, second provides critical exclusion context. Every word earns its place, and the most important information (what it does) comes first.

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 simple, parameterless RSS fetch tool with no output schema, the description provides sufficient context about what it returns (raw XML) and what it's not (archival catalogue). It could benefit from mentioning typical response structure or error cases, but covers the essential operational 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?

With 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the baseline would be 4. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist, and instead focuses on what the tool does and returns, which is correct for a parameterless tool.

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'), resource ('NAC institutional news RSS 2.0 feed'), and format ('raw XML'), distinguishing it from siblings by explicitly contrasting with archival catalogues on other platforms. It provides precise scope 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?

Explicitly states when NOT to use this tool ('This is not the digitized archival catalogue — that lives on szukajwarchiwach.gov.pl'), providing clear alternative context and preventing misuse. It defines the tool's specific domain versus other data sources.

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