The event history for a sandbox business: what was detected, what the owner reported, and what a recheck verified — with the timestamps that make the sequence auditable.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| checkId | No | ||
| businessId | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It adds useful context about timestamps making the sequence auditable, implying chronological ordering, but it does not explicitly confirm the operation is read-only or disclose any pagination, filtering, or permission requirements.
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, focused sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and content without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and earns its place with specific details about event types and timestamps.
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?
With no annotations and no output schema, the description provides a broad overview of return content (detected, reported, verified, timestamps) but lacks details on how checkId filters the history, whether results are ordered, and any limits or edge cases. This makes it moderately incomplete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly without additional context.
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 defines two parameters (checkId, businessId) with no descriptions, and the description does not address either parameter. It only vaguely references a 'sandbox business,' which maps to businessId, but checkId is completely unexplained, leaving a significant gap in parameter understanding.
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 returns 'the event history for a sandbox business' and details the three types of events (detected, owner reported, recheck verified) with timestamps. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_business_health, which likely return current status rather than history.
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 the tool is for viewing historical audit trails of a business, but it does not explicitly state when to use it instead of alternatives or provide exclusions. No mention of pairing with start_health_action or report_health_action_complete, leaving usage to be inferred.
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.
