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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the return format (JSON string) and error handling (Chinese error messages), which adds some context. However, it doesn't disclose critical traits like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, or what the JSON structure contains. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 appropriately sized. It front-loads the purpose in a clear sentence, followed by organized sections for Args, Returns, and Raises. Each section is concise and adds value without redundancy. There's no wasted text, making it easy for an AI agent to parse quickly.

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 (single required parameter) and the presence of an output schema (implied by 'Has output schema: true'), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the purpose, parameter details, return format, and error handling. However, with no annotations, it could benefit from more behavioral context (e.g., read-only nature, data source). The output schema means the description doesn't need to explain return values in detail, so this is adequate for the context.

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 description includes an 'Args' section that documents the single parameter 'interpellation_id', providing an example ('11-1-1-1') and noting it's required. Since schema description coverage is 100% (the schema already describes this parameter fully), the description adds minimal value beyond the schema. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting, and the description doesn't add significant semantic context like format constraints or usage tips.

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: '取得特定質詢的詳細資訊' (Get detailed information for a specific interpellation). It specifies the verb '取得' (get) and resource '質詢' (interpellation), making the action clear. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_interpellations' or 'get_legislator_interpellations', which would require mentioning this tool retrieves details for a single specific interpellation by ID.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'list_interpellations' for listing multiple interpellations or 'get_legislator_interpellations' for interpellations by legislator. There's no context about prerequisites, such as needing an interpellation ID from another source, or exclusions. Usage is implied only by the parameter requirement.

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