Resolve a public graph assertion citation to its canonical entity or entities, exact assertion, source, observation time, truth state, confidence, publication scope, methodology and provenance. Accepts the OEX citation URN, token, or resolver URL returned beside a graph fact or relationship.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| citation | Yes | citation.id, citation resolver URL, or versioned citation token. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It transparently lists the categories of data returned (source, observation time, truth state, confidence, publication scope, methodology, provenance), giving a clear picture of the output. It does not mention any side effects or permissions, but the tool appears to be a read operation and the description effectively communicates its scope.
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 long sentence but efficiently packs all key information without fluff. It front-loads the primary action and then lists the output aspects. While it could be split for readability, it remains concise and easy to scan.
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?
Given there is no output schema and no annotations, the description must fully explain what the tool returns. It enumerates all major result categories (entity, assertion, source, observation time, truth state, confidence, publication scope, methodology, provenance), making the tool's behavior quite complete. This is sufficient for a resolve operation with a single input parameter.
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 100% for the single param, already documenting citation.id, resolver URL, or token. The description adds value by explaining the origin of the citation ('returned beside a graph fact or relationship'), providing context beyond the schema. However, it doesn't provide concrete examples of URN formats, but the combination is quite informative.
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?
Purpose is clearly stated: 'Resolve a public graph assertion citation to its canonical entity or entities' with a specific verb and resource. The description lists the exact output components (exact assertion, source, observation time, etc.), making it unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from sibling resolve_entity/resolve_entities by focusing specifically on citation resolution, though it doesn't explicitly name those alternatives.
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 usage context by saying 'Returned beside a graph fact or relationship', suggesting it is used when a citation is encountered. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_evidence or get_entity, nor any when-not-to-use conditions. The usage context is implied but not directly stated.
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.
