Lists public-domain figures with id, name, place, edition, and PD basis so you can choose which advisors to assemble into a council. Returns metadata only; no fetching.
Список PD-фигур каталога (общественное достояние) — id/имя/место/издание/PD-basis. Без фетча. Чужой выбирает, кого собрать в совет.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that no fetching occurs and what fields are returned, but says nothing about ordering, result size/pagination, permissions, or side effects for what is presumably a bulk listing.
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?
Three short segments, front-loaded with the resource and its return fields, with no filler. It is appropriately terse for a simple list tool, though the final sentence is idiomatic enough to be slightly ambiguous.
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?
With no parameters and no output schema, the description compensates by naming the returned fields. For a simple catalog listing that is close to sufficient, though ordering and pagination behavior for a potentially long list remain unaddressed.
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 tool takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies a parameterless, unfiltered listing and adds the returned field set, which is the relevant semantic content here.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Список PD-фигур каталога') and enumerates the returned fields (id/имя/место/издание/PD-basis), so the agent knows exactly what it gets. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like catalog_search or catalog_preview, though 'Без фетча' hints at the difference.
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 phrase 'Без фетча' implies this is a lightweight listing rather than a detail fetch (catalog_preview) or query (catalog_search), and the council remark gestures at why one would list. But no alternative tool is named and no explicit when/when-not condition is given, leaving the routing to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.