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. It effectively communicates that this is a read-only operation ('Retrieve') and specifies the input source, but lacks details on error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or response format. It adds some behavioral context but is incomplete for a tool with no annotation support.

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, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose, usage context, and parameter source without any redundant information. It is front-loaded with the core action and appropriately sized for its complexity.

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 tool's low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but minimal. It covers the basic purpose and usage context but lacks details on behavioral traits like error responses or metadata structure, which could be helpful despite the 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 fully documents the 'uuid' parameter. The description adds minimal value by reiterating that the UUID comes from 'ruj_search' results, but does not provide additional semantics beyond what the schema already states. 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 specific action ('Retrieve full metadata'), target resource ('a single item in the Jagiellonian University Repository'), and method ('by its UUID'). It explicitly distinguishes from sibling 'ruj_search' by noting the UUID source, making the purpose unambiguous and distinct.

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: after obtaining a UUID from 'ruj_search' results. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like other 'get_item' tools (e.g., 'agh_get_item'), leaving some ambiguity in sibling differentiation.

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