Retrieve one municipality as a governed economic profile with canonical identity, available evidence, links, and qualifications.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Municipality name, slug, or SGC code. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the profile is 'governed' and includes 'qualifications', which hints at data governance and vetting, but it does not disclose potential errors, response shape, or operational behaviors such as required permissions or rate limits. The read-only nature is implied by 'Retrieve', but not elaborated.
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 immediately states the verb and resource. It avoids unnecessary words and is easy to scan. Every word contributes to describing the tool's purpose.
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?
The tool has one parameter and no output schema, but the description provides a brief overview of what the profile contains. However, given the lack of output schema and annotations, a more complete description might include examples of the return structure or clarify what 'governed' means in practice. The description is sufficient for a simple retrieval tool but leaves some gaps.
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 description coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'id', which is described as 'Municipality name, slug, or SGC code.' The description of the tool adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 uses a specific verb 'Retrieve' and clearly identifies the resource as 'one municipality as a governed economic profile'. It lists profile components (canonical identity, available evidence, links, qualifications), which gives some differentiation from sibling tools like get_community_economy or get_economy_overview. However, it could more explicitly state what makes 'governed economic profile' unique, so it does not fully distinguish itself.
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. There are no exclusions, no mention of when a sibling tool would be more appropriate, and no context about prerequisites or intended use cases. It only states what it does.
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.
