Get the official project declaration for a building or residential complex using its EISZHS object ID, or receive an honest refusal when data is unavailable.
Проектная декларация: ключ ЕИСЖС клиента или честный отказ. Описание методов закрыто.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| object_id | Yes | Идентификатор объекта (строящегося дома/ЖК) в ЕИСЖС. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It hints at a result ('ключ ЕИСЖС клиента или честный отказ' — key or honest refusal) but never explains what an 'honest refusal' is, what failure cases look like, or whether the operation is read-only. The final sentence says method descriptions are closed, further reducing transparency.
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 short, but that is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. 'Описание методов закрыто' is a non-informative meta-statement that does not earn its place, and the main clause is too cryptic to serve as a useful front-loaded summary.
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?
Even though the tool has only one parameter and an output schema, the description is not complete enough for an agent to understand the tool's contract. It lacks a clear behavior statement, usage context, and any meaningful explanation of the 'honest refusal' outcome, while explicitly stating that method descriptions are closed.
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%, and the object_id parameter already has a clear Russian description in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, which fits the baseline of 3 when the schema is doing 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 is a noun phrase ('Проектная декларация: ...') that largely restates the tool name and adds a cryptic phrase ('ключ ЕИСЖС клиента или честный отказ') without a clear verb or outcome. It does not clarify what the tool actually does beyond what the name already implies, and 'Описание методов закрыто' actively withholds explanation.
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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like check_developer, check_escrow, or check_construction_permit. It does not mention contexts, exclusions, or alternatives; the statement 'Описание методов закрыто' explicitly indicates that no usage guidance will be provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.