Find Polish Constitutional Tribunal rulings by exact case signature (e.g., K 23/11) using the official IPO index.
Wyszukuje po dokładnej sygnaturze TK, np. K 23/11 albo SK 45/09, w indeksie z oficjalnego IPO.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pageSize | No | ||
| signature | Yes | ||
| 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, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the source (official IPO index) and exact-match semantics, which is useful but does not go deeper into pagination or match behavior. 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?
One efficient sentence with the action, key examples, and data source front-loaded. No filler or repeated information.
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 simple exact-lookup tool with strong annotations, the description covers the core query and source. It could mention pagination behavior or explicitly contrast with 'search', but those are minor gaps given the tool's simplicity.
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%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for 'signature' by explaining exact TK signature format and giving examples, but it says nothing about 'pageSize' or 'pageNumber', leaving two parameters under-described.
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 uses a specific verb ('Wyszukuje'), identifies the resource (the official IPO index), and states the exact criterion (TK signature) with concrete format examples. This clearly differentiates it from the broader sibling 'search'.
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?
It clearly implies when to use the tool: when the exact TK signature is known, reinforced by examples. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is specific enough for an agent to select it appropriately.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.