Compare 2–10 Saskatchewan communities and return explicit missing-data and comparability results for every requested metric.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| bundle | No | Comparison metric preset; defaults to municipal-economic-profile-v1. | |
| metrics | No | Optional additional fact metrics. | |
| entities | Yes | Municipality names, local slugs, or SGC codes. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a valuable behavioral trait: the tool returns explicit missing-data and comparability results for every metric, which goes beyond a simple comparison. However, it does not mention permission requirements, output format, or how errors are handled, leaving notable gaps.
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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the essential purpose, scope, and a key output trait. It is free of fluff and every word contributes meaning.
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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description provides only a high-level understanding. It explains that the tool returns missing-data and comparability results but does not detail the structure of the results or edge cases such as invalid entity names. This is adequate but not comprehensive.
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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no new parameter-specific details beyond what the schema already provides. It references 'requested metric' which aligns with the metrics parameter, but does not elaborate on valid metric names or behavior.
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 tool's function: compare 2-10 Saskatchewan communities. It specifies the geographic scope (Saskatchewan) which distinguishes it from broader tools like compare_municipalities, and reveals a specific output characteristic (explicit missing-data and comparability results) that differentiates it from generic comparison tools.
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 clear context for when this tool is appropriate: whenever a comparison of Saskatchewan communities is needed, with 2-10 entities and explicit missing-data handling. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion criteria, 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.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Several tools are effectively duplicates or near-duplicates: get_emerging_signals is an explicit alias for list_economic_signals, resolve_entity and resolve_entities overlap heavily, and the markdown variants duplicate their non-markdown reports. Pairs like compare_communities/compare_municipalities and search_businesses/search_licensed_businesses also require reading long contracts to avoid misselection.
Tool names overwhelmingly follow a snake_case verb_noun pattern with sensible verbs like get_, list_, search_, and compare_. The main deviations are the backwards-compatible get_emerging_signals alias and prefix choices such as check_business_health vs get_business_health that obscure the underlying distinction.
70 tools is an extreme surface for any MCP server, far beyond the 25+ 'too many' threshold. The set is fragmented by format variants, aliases, and multiple overlapping lookup tools, making selection and maintenance costly.
The domain surface is broad: entity resolution, business health, labour, community economy, procurement, and governance evidence are all covered in depth. However, there are notable lifecycle gaps—no sandbox deletion, consent revocation, health-action cancellation, or actual exchange/connect/apply step—that leave agents with dead ends.
