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 of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behavioral traits: the search supports full-text with filters, sort options, 0-based pagination, HAL+JSON results with highlights and metadata, and detailed operator syntax for filters. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication requirements, 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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose and key features. It uses two sentences efficiently to convey search capabilities, result format, and operator details without unnecessary repetition. Minor improvements could include bullet points for readability, but overall it's well-structured.

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 complexity (19 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is moderately complete. It covers the search functionality, result format, and operator syntax, but lacks details on output structure (beyond HAL+JSON), error cases, or performance considerations. With no output schema, more information on return values would be beneficial.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so parameters are well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds value by explaining the operator syntax for filter values (e.g., 'Smith,equals') and listing supported operators, which complements the schema. However, it doesn't provide additional semantic context beyond what the schema already covers for most parameters.

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 publications in the Jagiellonian University Repository via DSpace 7 discovery, specifying the resource (publications in RUJ) and action (search). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'ruj_get_item' by focusing on search functionality rather than retrieval of individual items.

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 implies usage for searching publications with full-text and filtering capabilities, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'ruj_get_item' or other repository search tools in the sibling list. It provides context about search features but lacks explicit guidance on tool selection.

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