Shows monthly Czech Social Security advance payments, highlights paid and overdue months, and estimates next year's advance amount.
Rozpis měsíčních záloh ČSSZ: které měsíce jsou zaplacené / po splatnosti, a odhad zálohy na příští rok.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| year | No | Rok. Default letošní. |
| 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 supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that results include per-month paid/overdue status and a computed next-year estimate (useful computed-value disclosure), but never states that it is read-only, whether ČSSZ data requires prior authentication/setup, or anything about data freshness. For a simple lookup this is adequate but not rich.
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?
One tightly packed sentence with a colon-delimited enumeration of outputs; no filler, and the resource is front-loaded before the details.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the sole parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description is nearly complete for a one-parameter read tool; the only omission is any note on access requirements or what to do if ČSSZ data is not configured.
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 coverage is 100% and the single 'year' parameter is already documented in the schema with its default ('Rok. Default letošní.'). The description adds no additional meaning about the year parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 resource and its scope: monthly ČSSZ advance payments, showing which months are paid or overdue plus a next-year advance estimate. An agent can immediately tell this is a payment-schedule lookup, distinct from every sibling tool (invoicing, customers, VAT). No explicit verb is used, which keeps it just short of a 5.
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?
Usage is only implied by the listed contents – an agent infers it is for checking advance payment status or forecasting next year's advance. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives (none of the siblings actually overlap, so this gap is minor).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.