Retrieve the governed context and evidence boundary for one business entity. Licence presence establishes snapshot presence only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Canonical business id from search_businesses or a graph query. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It adds a behavioral caveat: 'Licence presence establishes snapshot presence only,' which hints at data interpretation nuances. Yet it omits auth requirements, error behavior, or return format, so transparency is incomplete.
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 brief with two sentences and no filler. The first sentence states purpose clearly. The second sentence is cryptic but not wasteful, though clearer wording would improve understandability.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description should explain what data is returned. It mentions 'governed context and evidence boundary' without elaboration, leaving the return structure and possible edge cases (e.g., missing entity) undefined. This is insufficient for a tool with no structured output metadata.
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% as the only parameter 'id' has a descriptive explanation ('Canonical business id from search_businesses or a graph query'). The description itself adds no extra parameter semantics, matching the baseline for high schema coverage.
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 retrieves 'governed context and evidence boundary' for a single business entity, which is a specific verb+resource. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_evidence or get_entity_context, though the business entity scope provides some distinction.
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 implies usage when you need evidence context for a business entity, and the id parameter description in the schema says to source IDs from search_businesses or graph queries. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of alternative tools, leaving usage partially implied.
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.
