Resolve a user-supplied name, slug, NOC code, SGC code, program, sector or governed source to its canonical OEX identity. Call this before joining datasets when the identifier is uncertain. Results include the correct follow-up MCP tool and arguments.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| type | No | Optional entity-type constraint. | |
| limit | No | Maximum matches; default 8. | |
| query | Yes | Name, alternate title, slug, or official identifier. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that results include the follow-up tool and arguments, which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation or mention side effects, permissions, or failure behavior, leaving some ambiguity.
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?
Two sentences, no filler. The first sentence states purpose immediately; the second provides usage timing and output hint. 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?
The description covers purpose, when to use, and the key output (follow-up tool and arguments). It lacks details about no-match behavior or how to handle multiple results, but given the schema covers parameters and no output schema exists, it is reasonably complete for a resolution tool.
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%, so parameters are already well-documented. The description adds a few examples (NOC code, SGC code, program, sector) that slightly expand on the schema's 'official identifier' phrase, but this is marginal and does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema.
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 resolves a user-supplied identifier (name, slug, NOC/SGC code, etc.) to a canonical OEX identity. It uses a specific verb ('resolve') and resource, and uniquely positions itself as the pre-join disambiguation step, distinguishing it from siblings like search_entities or get_entity.
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 explicitly says 'Call this before joining datasets when the identifier is uncertain,' providing a clear use case and timing. However, it does not name alternatives or give when-not-to-use conditions, so it falls short of a 5.
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.
