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 that the tool fetches records in XML format, mentions session dependency for 'find' results, and describes common input formats. However, it doesn't cover important behavioral aspects like error handling, response structure, pagination, or authentication requirements for a tool that presumably reads data from a server.

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 two sentences. The first sentence establishes purpose and context, while the second provides usage guidance and format details. There's minimal redundancy, though the format information could be slightly more concise. Every sentence earns its place by adding value.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate but incomplete context. It covers the basic purpose, prerequisites, and parameter usage, but lacks information about return values, error conditions, or system-specific behaviors. Given the technical nature of Aleph X-Server operations and the absence of structured metadata, more behavioral transparency 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it mentions that '8-digit zero-padded entry numbers are common' for set_entry and that format defaults to 'marc', but these details are already implied or explicit in the schema. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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's purpose: 'Fetch catalogue records from the SUM Aleph X-Server `op=present` (XML, typically MARC in `<oai_marc>`)'. It specifies the verb ('fetch'), resource ('catalogue records'), and source system. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'sum_aleph_find' beyond mentioning prior results from 'find'.

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: 'Use `set_no` and `set_entry` from a prior `find` result set in the same session when search works; or indices as returned by the OPAC'. This gives specific prerequisites and alternative input sources. It doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternative tools for different scenarios.

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