Fetch the governed context for one resolved entity in a single call. Accepts a canonical id, local slug or exact name and routes to the existing occupation, municipality, sector, training, NOC or source resource so evidence and provenance are preserved.
| 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?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses it is a single-call fetch that preserves evidence/provenance, but does not clarify what 'governed context' includes, error handling, or permissions. This is adequate for a read-only tool but not rich.
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 well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action and then adds necessary detail. Every clause earns its place without redundancy.
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 supports 22 entity types with no output schema and no annotations. The description does not outline the response shape, how responses differ by type, or what to expect from 'governed context.' This is insufficient for the tool's complexity.
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 covers id with a description but type only has enums. The description adds that id accepts canonical id, local slug, or exact name, and lists some resource types. This supplements the schema partially, but does not explain type-id matching or how type affects routing.
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 fetches 'governed context for one resolved entity in a single call,' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like get_entity by emphasizing 'governed context' and preservation of evidence/provenance.
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?
It implies usage after resolving an entity and mentions routing across resource types, but does not explicitly exclude alternatives or state when not to use. The reference to 'from resolve_entities' gives context, but lacks explicit when-to-use versus alternatives.
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.
