Mevzuat MCP

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 discloses key behavioral traits: it fetches and converts PDFs to Markdown, notes that decisions are only available as PDFs, and describes the return format ('Full decision content formatted as Markdown'). However, it lacks details on error handling, rate limits, or authentication needs, leaving some 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 and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by supporting details and an example. Most sentences earn their place, though the 'Returns' section could be slightly more concise. Overall, it is appropriately sized and clear.

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 (PDF conversion, specific document type), the description is complete enough. It explains the purpose, usage workflow, and output format, and with an output schema present, it does not need to detail return values. The context signals (100% schema coverage, output schema) support this assessment.

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 both parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning these parameters in the example usage, but does not provide additional semantics or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific action ('Retrieve the full content'), resource ('Turkish Presidential Decision'), and format ('in Markdown format'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_cbbaskankarar (which finds decisions) and other content retrieval tools for different document types (e.g., get_cbgenelge_content).

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: 'Use search_cbbaskankarar first to find the decision number and series,' with a step-by-step example showing the workflow. This clearly indicates when to use this tool versus alternatives and establishes prerequisites.

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