Credit GPS — Canadian credit

How long things stay on a Canadian credit file

explain_retention_periods

Read-onlyIdempotent

Use this for any "how long will this stay on my credit report" question. Returns retention periods on a Canadian credit file: closed accounts, late payments, collections, hard inquiries, bankruptcy, consumer proposals, judgments. Durations differ by information type, bureau, and province. Returns those distinctions and source links. Returns bundled reference material, optionally filtered or calculated from inputs; does not fetch live data or change accounts.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`asOf`	Yes
`items`	Yes
`caveat`	Yes
`disclosure`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedOct 25, 2026
- removedOutput schema / properties / items / items / properties / differsFromUs / anyOf
```
Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]
```
- addedOutput schema / properties / items / items / properties / differsFromUs / type
```
Added value: +[
+  "string",
+  "null"
+]
```
AddedSep 7, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the burden is low; the description still adds real context by saying durations vary by information type, bureau, and province, that source links are included, and that the material is bundled reference rather than live data. The only redundancy is 'does not change accounts,' which restates destructiveHint=false.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loads the usage trigger and keeps to four sentences with no filler. The repeated 'Returns…' openings are slightly mechanical and the closing negative clause mildly duplicates the annotations, but nothing is wasted space.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers domain scope, variability, and sourcing. The only completeness gap is the unresolved 'filtered or calculated from inputs' wording against a parameterless schema.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With zero parameters, the baseline would be 4, but the phrase 'optionally filtered or calculated from inputs' implies inputs exist that the empty schema does not define. That mismatch leaves the agent unsure whether arguments are expected, so it lands below baseline.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Returns retention periods on a Canadian credit file') and enumerates the covered information types (closed accounts, late payments, collections, inquiries, bankruptcy, proposals, judgments). This clearly differentiates it from the narrower sibling explain_missed_payment and the broader explain_canadian_credit_mechanics.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Opens with an explicit trigger: 'Use this for any "how long will this stay on my credit report" question,' which tells the agent exactly which user intent routes here. It does not name a competing sibling or state exclusions in tool terms, so it stops short of a 5.

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

All Credit GPS — Canadian credit tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?