Retrieve one governed entity record with its evidence, provenance, canonical links, and permitted interpretation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Exact canonical id, local slug, or name from resolve_entities. | |
| type | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It uses 'Retrieve' which implies a read operation, and lists return contents, but does not explicitly state read-only behavior, error/not-found handling, or authorization requirements. The phrase 'permitted interpretation' hints at governance but is vague.
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 sentence, front-loaded with the verb 'Retrieve', and contains no redundant or tangential information. Every part adds 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?
As a simple getter with no annotations or output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It does not mention that id may need resolution via resolve_entities first, nor does it clarify what 'permitted interpretation' means. More guidance on when to use this tool vs siblings would improve completeness.
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?
The schema already provides a detailed description for id (canonical id, slug, or name from resolve_entities) and a full enum for type. The description adds no parameter information, but the schema coverage is sufficient for these two parameters, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 the specific verb 'Retrieve' and identifies the resource as 'one governed entity record' with enumerated components (evidence, provenance, canonical links, permitted interpretation). It clearly distinguishes this general entity getter from siblings like get_role or get_sector that target specific entity types.
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 this is for fetching a single entity by type and id, but it does not state when to prefer this over resolve_entities or search_entities, nor does it name alternatives or exclusions. The context is clear but under-specified.
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.
