Tell OEX the business's website so it can be inspected. Supplying a domain permits inspection; it does not assert that the business owns or controls it, and OEX will not publish the domain as the business's own on this basis alone.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | Yes | ||
| businessId | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does well by explaining that supplying a domain 'permits inspection' and explicitly stating it does not assert ownership or control, and 'will not publish the domain as the business's own on this basis alone.' This adds valuable context beyond what annotations would provide.
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, front-loaded with the action, and no unnecessary words. The structure is efficient and the purpose is immediately clear.
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 setter with no output schema and no annotations, the description is adequately complete. It explains the purpose, the key semantic caveat, and the non-side-effect. It does not mention operational details like overwriting existing domains or return behavior, but these are not critical for a tool of this simplicity.
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 adds meaningful semantics for 'domain' by framing it as the business's website and clarifying the non-ownership nuance, but it leaves 'businessId' completely undefined. The description offers partial compensation but not full.
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's function with a specific verb ('Tell OEX') and resource ('the business's website'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by clarifying that the domain is for inspection, not ownership assertion, which is a key differentiator.
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?
It implies the use case (to enable inspection) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like update_business_record, nor does it provide exclusions or preconditions. The caveat about ownership is a semantic nuance rather than usage 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.
