Send input data to the PismoSzyteNaMiare API to generate Polish legal documents like sales contracts, powers of attorney, and termination letters from your AI assistant.
Post data to the PismoSzyteNaMiare API. Replace with your real tool.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| input | Yes | Input data to process |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses nothing: no auth requirements, no side effects, no idempotency or failure behavior, no indication of what is created or returned. A mutation tool with zero behavioral disclosure.
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?
Short, but the second sentence is boilerplate placeholder text that carries no operational meaning and signals an unfinished definition. Brevity here reflects under-specification rather than efficient editing.
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?
With no annotations, no output schema, and a placeholder description, nothing tells the agent how to call this safely or what to expect. The definition is not usable as written.
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% for the single "input" parameter, so the schema already documents it. The description adds no format, encoding, or content guidance beyond that, which is the baseline expectation when the schema does the work.
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?
"Post data to the PismoSzyteNaMiare API" names a verb and a target, but the target is an unnamed template placeholder and "Replace with your real tool" explicitly admits the content is not real. An agent cannot determine what resource is being posted or how this differs from the sibling example_get.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no conditions, no exclusions, and no mention of the sibling example_get even though it is the obvious read counterpart to this write tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.