Taiwan Legislative Yuan MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions that the tool returns JSON with committee details and raises exceptions with Chinese error messages, which adds some behavioral context. However, it lacks information on critical aspects such as whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling specifics beyond the language. For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap in 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 concise and well-structured, using sections like 'Args:', 'Returns:', and 'Raises:' to organize information clearly. It avoids unnecessary details and gets straight to the point. However, it could be slightly improved by front-loading the purpose more prominently, but overall, it's efficient with minimal waste.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (1 parameter, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema (implied by 'Returns: str: JSON format'), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the purpose, parameter, return format, and error handling. However, with no annotations, it misses behavioral details like safety or performance traits, which slightly reduces completeness for a tool that might involve data retrieval.

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 description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'comt_cd' fully documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value by restating that 'comt_cd' is required and providing an example, but doesn't elaborate on semantics beyond what the schema already covers. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate with additional insights.

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: '取得特定委員會資訊' (Get specific committee information). It specifies the resource (committee) and the action (get information), which is straightforward. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_committees', which might list multiple committees rather than retrieving details for a specific one, though this is somewhat implied by the '特定' (specific) qualifier.

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 implies usage by mentioning '特定委員會' (specific committee), suggesting it's for retrieving details of a known committee, as opposed to listing all committees. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'list_committees' or other sibling tools, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. The usage is contextually implied but not clearly stated.

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