Retrieve recent rulings from the Polish Constitutional Tribunal's official list. Control page size and number to fetch specific batches of decisions.
Pobiera na żywo najnowsze orzeczenia z oficjalnej listy IPO TK.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pageSize | No | ||
| pageNumber | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context by saying the data is fetched 'na żywo' (live) and from the 'oficjalnej listy' (official list), but it discloses nothing about pagination behavior, data freshness guarantees, or result shape. No contradiction with annotations.
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 a single short sentence with no filler. Every element contributes: live retrieval, recency, subject, and source. It is front-loaded and easy to parse.
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?
For a low-complexity read-only list tool, the description plus schema constraints is mostly sufficient. The main missing piece is an explicit note about pagination or the response format, but the parameter names and the word 'list_recent' make the expected behavior reasonably inferable.
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 0%, and the description does not mention pageSize or pageNumber. The parameter names and schema bounds give some clues, but the description itself adds no semantic meaning to help an agent understand pagination behavior or how values should be used.
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 states an explicit action ('Pobiera na żywo' = fetches live), a specific resource ('najnowsze orzeczenia z oficjalnej listy IPO TK' = latest rulings from the official IPO TK list), and a distinct scope ('najnowsze' = latest). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like search, search_by_signature, and get_judgment.
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 guidance is given about when to prefer this tool over the siblings search, search_by_signature, or get_judgment. The description implies a use case through 'najnowsze', but it does not state when to use it, when not to, or which alternative fits other scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.