Retrieves current language and title/prose formatting rules for project guides. Returns language code, module reference, and EN/PL policies in Markdown.
Aktualny język instrukcji i polityka tytułów vs prozy.
Returns:
str: Markdown z kodem języka, modułem core:language-* i regułami EN/PL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It discloses the return type and content, and the 'get' verb implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state whether the tool has side effects, requires context, or depends on any session state. For a zero-parameter getter this is minimally acceptable but not rich.
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 compact: one purpose sentence followed by a structured 'Returns:' line with the type and content. Every piece contributes useful information, and the purpose is front-loaded before the return detail.
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 zero parameters and an existing output schema, the description covers what an agent needs to know to invoke the tool and interpret the result. It could be slightly more explicit about the intended use case or what 'title vs prose policy' means, but for a simple getter it is largely complete.
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 tool has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to document. Schema description coverage is effectively complete with an empty properties object, matching the baseline for no-parameter tools.
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 names the resource ('get_language' means current instruction language) and specifies what is returned: Markdown with the language code, the `core:language-*` module, and EN/PL rules. It is specific enough to distinguish the tool from siblings like get_overlay or get_codegen, though the phrase 'tytułów vs prozy' remains somewhat ambiguous.
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 gives no guidance on when to call this tool versus alternatives such as get_overlay or get_codegen. It does not state contexts, exclusions, or relationships to sibling tools, so an agent must infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.