Resolve user language or an official code to the canonical OEX identity and the correct next tool. Returns ranked candidates when the input is ambiguous.
| 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 must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions returning ranked candidates when ambiguous, which is useful, but it does not disclose behavior for no-match cases, permissions, or rate limits, leaving gaps.
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 concise sentences with no filler, front-loaded with the verb 'Resolve' and immediately conveying the primary action and key behavior.
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 output schema, the description should clarify return structure more thoroughly. It mentions ranked candidates but not fields, error handling, or how the 'correct next tool' is determined, leaving the tool incomplete for an entity-resolution tool with a broad type enum.
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 already describes all parameters (100% coverage), so the description adds little beyond what the schema provides. It references 'user language' but the schema already enumerates query types as 'Name, alternate title, slug, or official identifier,' so no additional semantic value.
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 user language or official codes to a canonical OEX identity and the correct next tool, using a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from siblings like search_entities and get_entity, making its purpose unambiguous.
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 for ambiguous or natural-language inputs requiring canonicalization, but does not explicitly contrast with siblings like resolve_entities or search_entities, leaving some guidance missing. It provides clear context but no exclusions or alternatives.
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.
