Grant a purpose-scoped consent on behalf of the sandbox business. This is what an invitation in the report is asking for. The classes are separate on purpose: granting one never widens another.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| businessId | Yes | ||
| consentClass | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses an important behavioral nuance: 'granting one never widens another' regarding consent classes. However, it does not explain the effects of granting (e.g., whether it's reversible, what changes occur, or any prerequisites), leaving notable gaps for a mutation-type tool.
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 two sentences long and front-loaded with the action. Every sentence adds value: the first states the core purpose, the second provides context and a critical behavioral caveat. No filler or repetition.
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 tool with 2 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description provides solid contextual grounding: the invitation context and the separation of classes. It does not describe the return value or post-conditions, but given the relatively simple action, it is mostly complete.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It indirectly explains consentClass by saying 'classes are separate,' but does not explain businessId or the meaning of the enum values. The 'sandbox business' phrase gives context that businessId refers to a sandbox business, but parameter semantics remain under-specified.
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 action: 'Grant a purpose-scoped consent on behalf of the sandbox business.' It uses a specific verb ('grant') and resource ('purpose-scoped consent'), and distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on this unique consent-granting action, referencing the report invitation context.
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 phrase 'This is what an invitation in the report is asking for' provides clear when-to-use guidance. It implies use when an invitation requests a consent grant. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it falls short of full exclusionary guidance.
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.
