search_cpvFind the correct Polish public procurement CPV category codes by entering a Polish keyword. Get relevant results with an optional limit to simplify tender classification.
Look up CPV (procurement category) codes by Polish keyword.
Examples: search_cpv("komputer") search_cpv("budowa drogi", limit=5)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. 'Look up' conveys a read-only, non-destructive operation, and 'by Polish keyword' adds useful input-language context. But it does not disclose matching behavior (e.g., partial/fuzzy matching), result ordering, or error conditions; the output schema mitigates return-format ambiguity somewhat.
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, front-loaded with the core purpose, and uses two concrete examples to clarify parameter usage. Every line earns its place, and there is no redundant elaboration.
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 two-parameter lookup tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential context: what is searched, in what language, and how the optional parameter is used. It does not mention when to prefer this over get_category_stats or raw_request, but the low complexity keeps the remaining gap minor.
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 schema provides only bare types and a default, with 0% description coverage. The description compensates well by showing that 'query' is a Polish keyword and demonstrating 'limit' with a concrete example (limit=5), which clarifies that limit controls result size despite the schema not explaining it.
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 names a specific verb ('Look up'), a clear resource ('CPV (procurement category) codes'), and the required search dimension ('by Polish keyword'). It is clearly distinct from sibling tools like search_tenders and search_entities, which search different object types.
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 suggested usage is implied through the examples showing Polish keywords and an optional limit, so an agent can infer when to call this tool. However, there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus the sibling tools, nor any exclusion such as 'for tender search use search_tenders instead'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.