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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the tool returns JSON format results and raises Chinese error messages, which is useful. However, it doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, pagination behavior beyond basic parameters, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens when multiple filters are combined. The description adds some value but leaves significant gaps.

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 with clear sections (Args, Returns, Raises) and appropriately sized. The opening statement is front-loaded with the core purpose. However, the parameter documentation in the Args section is redundant with the schema, making the description longer than necessary without adding value. The structure is good but could be more concise by removing the duplicated parameter 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (7 parameters, filtering functionality) and the presence of an output schema (implied by 'Returns: str: JSON格式'), the description provides reasonable context. It covers the basic purpose, parameters, return format, and error behavior. However, with no annotations and a read operation that likely involves filtering logic, it could benefit from more behavioral context about how filters interact and what the JSON structure contains.

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%, so the schema already documents all 7 parameters thoroughly with descriptions, examples, and defaults. The description repeats this parameter information verbatim in the Args section, adding no additional semantic meaning beyond what's in the schema. This meets the baseline of 3 when schema coverage is complete, but earns no extra credit for value addition.

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 '列出公報目錄列表' (list gazette agenda directories), which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get_gazette_agenda' (singular) and 'list_gazettes', but doesn't explicitly explain how it differs from 'get_gazette_agendas' (plural form). The purpose is clear but sibling differentiation could be more explicit.

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. While the name suggests it's for listing agenda directories (as opposed to 'get_gazette_agenda' for a single agenda or 'list_gazettes' for gazettes themselves), there's no explicit comparison or usage context. The parameter documentation implies filtering capabilities but doesn't explain when to use which filters.

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