TWSE MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states it 'obtains' information, implying a read operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it requires authentication, rate limits, what format the output is in (though output schema exists), or if it handles invalid codes. The description is minimal and lacks context on how the tool behaves beyond its basic function.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the key action and resource. There's no wasted verbiage, repetition, or unnecessary details, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 has 1 parameter with low schema coverage (0%) but an output schema exists, the description is minimally complete. It covers the basic purpose and parameter semantics but lacks usage guidelines and behavioral transparency, which are gaps for a tool with no annotations. The output schema mitigates the need to explain return values, but overall context is sparse.

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 description adds meaning by specifying that the 'code' parameter is a 'stock code' for a 'listed company', which clarifies its purpose beyond the schema's generic 'Code' title and string type. With 0% schema description coverage and only 1 parameter, this compensation is adequate, though it doesn't detail format constraints (e.g., ticker symbols).

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 verb 'obtain' and the resource 'community relations information for a listed company', specifying it's based on the stock code. It distinguishes from many siblings that focus on different company data (e.g., financials, governance, trading), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from all possible overlaps like CSR reports or inclusive finance data, which are related but not identical.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., valid stock codes), exclusions, or compare to siblings like 'get_companies_with_csr_reports_103' or 'get_company_inclusive_finance', which might overlap in community-related data. Usage is implied only by the tool name and description.

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