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 the return format (JSON) and error handling (Chinese error messages), but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, side effects, or what '詳細資訊' includes. For a read operation with no annotations, this is insufficient behavioral context.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the purpose, followed by clear sections for Args, Returns, and Raises. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 one parameter with full schema coverage and an output schema (implied by 'Returns: str: JSON format'), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the core purpose, parameter example, return format, and error handling, though it could benefit from more behavioral context given the lack of annotations.

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%, with the parameter 'gazette_id' fully documented in the schema. The description repeats the schema's example ('1137701') but adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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: '取得特定公報的詳細資訊' (Get detailed information for a specific gazette). It specifies the verb '取得' (get) and resource '公報' (gazette), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'get_gazette_agenda' or 'list_gazettes' beyond the '詳細資訊' (detailed information) 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'list_gazettes' for listing gazettes or 'get_gazette_agenda' for agenda-specific data, leaving the agent to infer usage based on naming alone.

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