Taiwan Legislative Yuan MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns JSON format and raises exceptions with Chinese error messages, which is useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't mention pagination behavior (beyond parameter defaults), rate limits, authentication requirements, or whether this is a read-only operation (though 'list' implies it).

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 structured with clear sections (Args, Returns, Raises) but is overly verbose. It repeats all parameter information that's already in the schema, making it longer than necessary. The core purpose statement is front-loaded, but the parameter listing adds bulk without proportional value.

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 complexity (18 parameters) and the presence of an output schema (implied by 'Returns: str: JSON 格式的議案查詢結果'), the description is reasonably complete. It covers parameters, return format, and error handling. However, it lacks guidance on tool selection among siblings, which is important given the server's many bill-related tools.

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%, so the schema already documents all 18 parameters with descriptions and defaults. The description repeats this information in the Args section without adding meaningful context beyond what's in the schema. The baseline is 3 when schema does the heavy lifting, and the description doesn't compensate with additional parameter 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 as '列出立法院議案列表' (list Legislative Yuan bills), which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'get_bill' or other bill-related tools, missing explicit differentiation about when to use list_bills versus get_bill for individual bill details.

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. With multiple bill-related sibling tools (get_bill, get_bill_doc_html, get_bill_meets, etc.), there's no indication that list_bills is for filtered searching/listing while get_bill is for retrieving specific bill details. The agent must infer usage from tool names alone.

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