Retrieve a governed upstream source or runtime provider and its lineage, licence boundary, releases, and serving status.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | Optional registered source id from get_data_sources or provider id from get_data_providers. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states a retrieval action but does not mention read-only nature, potential errors, rate limits, or what 'governed' implies operationally. Listing the retrieved attributes is semantic rather than behavioral.
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 that starts with the verb and omits filler. It efficiently conveys the core purpose, though a slight restructuring could improve readability; still, every word earns its place.
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?
For a simple one-parameter tool without an output schema, the description lists the expected content areas (lineage, licence boundary, releases, serving status), which gives a reasonable sense of what is returned. However, it omits behaviors like handling an omitted id or empty results. Adequate but with clear 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?
The input schema fully describes the single optional parameter 'id' with a cross-reference to get_data_sources and get_data_providers. The tool description reinforces that the id can be a source or provider id, but adds no additional syntax or format details. Since schema coverage is 100%, baseline 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 the specific verb 'Retrieve' and identifies the resource as 'a governed upstream source or runtime provider' along with key attributes (lineage, licence boundary, releases, serving status). This provides a clear sense of the tool's scope and distinguishes it from siblings like get_source_provenance, though the term 'evidence' could be more explicit.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_source_provenance or get_entity_context. The parameter description hints that ids come from get_data_sources/get_data_providers, but this is not sufficient to establish clear usage context or exclusions.
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.
