Get the GOV.UK Service Standard — 14 points the UK government uses to assess whether a public service is ready to launch. Widely applicable as a rigorous service-quality checklist beyond government. Use when the user asks how to evaluate a whole service.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate `readOnlyHint: true`, `idempotentHint: true`, and `destructiveHint: false`, so it's a safe, read-only operation already declared. The description adds context on what the tool returns (the 14 points) and frames its utility as a general checklist, which is useful behavioral information. While annotations already set the safety profile, the description enriches understanding of the tool's purpose, though it could mention whether it returns the entire list or filters by request—minor deduction given the strong annotation coverage.
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, information-dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get the GOV.UK Service Standard'), then explains what that is (14 points for service readiness) and why it matters (rigorous checklist). It includes a usage hint ('when the user asks how to evaluate a whole service') without any fluff. Every clause earns its place—extremely economical and well-structured.
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?
This is a parameterless, read-only tool with no output schema and rich annotations. The description covers what the tool does, its scope, and when to use it. There's no additional complexity (nested objects, enums, required fields) that would demand more explanation. The description is complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly. The query about return values is preemptively answered by explaining the standard's content.
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?
With zero parameters and 100% schema coverage (empty schema), the tool has no parameters to document. The description appropriately uses 'Get' to indicate a no-argument retrieval, and the schema trivially handles this. No compensation needed, but the description's clarity about what the tool does (returns the Service Standard) is the most relevant information an agent needs to know.
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 is clear and specific, using a direct 'gets' verb to indicate the action, and clearly names the resource 'GOV.UK Service Standard'. It explicitly defines the tool's scope regarding the 14 points for UK government service assessments, which helps distinguish it from siblings like 'generate_service_blueprint', 'get_design_system', or 'get_principles'.
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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'when the user asks how to evaluate a whole service.' While it doesn't name direct alternatives, the description implies when this tool is more appropriate than others (i.e., for holistic service evaluation rather than specific audits or design systems), which aligns with the siblings listed. The phrase 'beyond government' expands its applicability, clarifying it's not limited to UK-government-related queries.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes (audit_* vs get_* vs list_* vs generate_* vs score_*), but there is notable overlap among audit_page, audit_layout, score_page, and audit_url (all audit rendered HTML, with audit_page and score_page explicitly sharing checks; audit_screen and audit_ios_screen are aliases). The get_* family (get_pattern vs get_content_pattern vs get_service_pattern, get_principles vs get_brand_principles vs get_content_principles) have overlapping boundaries that may cause misselection.
Names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (audit_*, get_*, list_*, generate_*, score_*, compose_*, suggest_*, search_*), which is predictable and readable. Minor deviations exist: 'evaluate_design' uses evaluate_ instead of audit_/score_, and 'process' isn't present but 'compose_system' uses compose_ instead of generate_/get_. Overall the convention is strong and consistent.
45 tools is far beyond the typical well-scoped server (3-15 tools) and even beyond the 'heavy' 25+ threshold. The server appears to be an all-in-one design/UX knowledge base and auditing suite, but the sheer count makes discovery and selection overwhelming, and many tools (e.g., multiple audit_* variants for mobile platforms) could be consolidated.
The server covers a wide domain: audits for web/mobile/RN/SwiftUI, design tokens, UX principles, content systems, business strategy, creative scoring, and service design. However, there are gaps: no tool for creating or editing design systems (only get/generate), no update/delete operations anywhere (all read-only or audit-only), and the creative side has list/score but no generation tool. The set feels broad but shallow in lifecycle coverage.
