Correct or complete the business's own record — the fix for most findings about missing or thin information. Supply only the fields you are changing; an omitted field is left alone, not cleared.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | ||
| phone | No | ||
| address | No | ||
| category | No | ||
| businessId | Yes | ||
| description | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the key partial-update behavior ('omitted field is left alone, not cleared'), which is essential. However, it does not mention permissions, error handling, idempotency, or what happens if the businessId does not exist, leaving significant gaps for a mutation tool.
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 concise and well-structured: two sentences front-load the purpose, then provide critical usage detail. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or redundancy.
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 the primary use case and partial-update behavior, making it usable for common corrections. However, it lacks details about return values, error scenarios, or the required businessId parameter (though its purpose is inferable). Given the absence of an output schema, the agent is left guessing about what the tool returns. This is adequate but not fully complete.
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 for parameter meanings. It provides general guidance that only changed fields should be supplied, but it does not explain any specific parameter (e.g., what 'category' means, formatting of 'phone' or 'address'). The schema property names are self-explanatory, but the description adds little 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's purpose: 'Correct or complete the business's own record.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and further distinguishes itself by noting it is 'the fix for most findings about missing or thin information,' which separates it from sibling tools like create_sandbox_business or get_business_evidence.
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 gives clear usage context: it is for correcting or completing missing/thin information. It also provides important usage guidance on partial updates ('Supply only the fields you are changing'). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use the tool or name alternative tools, 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.
