Record that the owner says a finding is fixed. This is their claim, not OEX's: nothing renders as resolved until a recheck runs and the check actually passes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| checkId | Yes | ||
| 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 discloses the critical behavior that this only records a claim and does not mark anything as resolved until a recheck passes, which is non-obvious and adds real value. However, it does not mention idempotency, prerequisites, or what happens to the underlying health action record.
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, front-loaded with the primary action, and contains no filler or redundant content. Every clause earns its place by adding 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?
For a simple 2-parameter action with no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and a crucial caveat. However, it does not explain the resulting state change, any prerequisites, or the explicit next step of invoking a recheck tool, leaving the overall workflow partially underspecified.
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 has 0% description coverage, so the description should compensate. It loosely implies checkId is the finding and businessId identifies the owner's business, but it never explicitly explains either parameter, their format, or how they relate to each other. This leaves considerable ambiguity.
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: 'Record that the owner says a finding is fixed' with a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes this from verification tools by noting that this is the owner's claim, not OEX's, which separates it from sibling tools like recheck_business_health.
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 when to use it: when the owner claims a fix, not when verification is needed. The phrase 'nothing renders as resolved until a recheck runs' signals the alternative workflow, but it does not explicitly name recheck_business_health or state when not to use this tool.
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.
